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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Gestures broadly
Fair enough, didn’t realize you felt killing kids was okay. You got me there.
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.
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?
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.
Removed by mod
Good point, you should nuke this entire thread and/or ban both of us for veering so far off-topic.
Nah, this isn’t some elementary school with a zero-tolerance policy where we punish the victim along with the aggressor.