▲ 1420 ▼ All windows shatter (jlai.lu) submitted 2 years ago by ElCanut@jlai.lu to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 331 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 146 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (11 children) In capitalist US, property is more valuable than human life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 71 points 2 years ago (1 child) Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Who told you that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Rittenhouse permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) He was damaging property to protect lives? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent [+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago Thats just called familial priorities tho. Doggo is fam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] udon@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Ah, so that's why they try to reestablish slavery. Make people property again to protect them. Got it! permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (8 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 71 points 2 years ago (1 child) Remember: You can take lives to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect lives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Who told you that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Rittenhouse permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) He was damaging property to protect lives? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Who told you that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Rittenhouse permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) He was damaging property to protect lives? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Rittenhouse permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) He was damaging property to protect lives? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) He was damaging property to protect lives? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) by taking lives if necessary That's an aside you're imbuing, he never said the above. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago Why did he have a gun? You don't take a gun with you unless you're ready to use it. You don't use a gun unless you're ready to kill whatever you are pointing it at. Otherwise you're a complete fucking idiot that should have never been allowed around a gun in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Huh. I don't really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I've never heard his manifesto before. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he's been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) His "actions" were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked. Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat. It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism. why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies? Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You're not being very clear here. Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility. Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse. If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism. So, 2 main responses to that: Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun). Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?" See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else. (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before. To protest, obviously. Same as the other side. Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him. (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.) He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection? Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense. If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...." I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches. As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I'm just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it. His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn't. He was, hence the acquital. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) He's very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe "you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people"? If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there's a pretty high chance they'll shoot at you. And if you believe there's a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it's legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law. I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I'm saying it's really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn't even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so. Whatever his "real" reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse's presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home. The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset. I don't know what you're basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you're sad that MAGA celebrates him we're on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help? Because you think they are going to shoot someone else. everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1 I don't think they're 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I still don't know where you got the idea it was so certain he was going to blast people at random that chasing him down to hit him with a skateboard was reasonable and prudent. The only way your conclusion about MAGA = 51% of America makes sense is if voter participation was 100%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) About a third of Americans bothered to vote against Trump. The remaining 66% are either MAGA or have no problem with it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) You are hilariously wrong and I do not wish to converse with you further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago It's always the "hilariously wrong" people that need to announce they will no longer respond, instead of just not responding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) At best it only shows the moral philosophy of the plurality of people who bothered to vote, and your defeatism is tantamount to enabling their attitude. One guy had an idea of the relationship between property and (black) lives and got into a fight which ended in a death and was acquitted for murder. Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? What if a few people signal boosted her to rabble rouse their base? It's a handful of morons who are now disproportionately at the helm. They don't speak for you or me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Do you think that because Casey Anthony was acquitted, America thinks killing kids is no biggie? Gestures broadly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Fair enough, didn't realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, that's exactly what I said. You are definitely communicating in good faith and continuing to respond to you would be a good use of my time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -9 points 2 years ago (1 child) Oh no, someone gave up on arguing with you in good faith when you've been glib this entire time! Everyone else but you has to play by the rules, eh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) Using obvious sarcasm as a rhetorical technique is not in bad faith. Aggressively playing dumb to manufacture an excuse to attack the person doing so as if his argument were sincere, even though you yourself admit you knew he'd "been glib this entire time," however, is in bad faith. This is your warning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent [+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nah, this isn't some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 2 years ago Ah gotcha, you're like cops: you ignore rules except when you can stretch them to punish someone you disagree with. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] SARGE@startrek.website 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago Thats just called familial priorities tho. Doggo is fam. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 2 years ago Thats just called familial priorities tho. Doggo is fam. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] udon@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago Ah, so that's why they try to reestablish slavery. Make people property again to protect them. Got it! permalink fedilink source parent