Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[bilby]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can get than "he was carrying a gun, so that was seen as threatening". Which also has nothing to do with "being against Rittenhouse for his political beliefs".

 

[TSwizzle]

If the idiot wouldn't have gone there in the first place none of this happens.

And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

Also he had no reason to go and had no right to own a firearm. "Waving around a gun" and brandishing is the same thing.

He had his reasons to go, you just don’t like his reasons.

 

[laughing dog]

On the other hand, traveling to a riot with a rifle is a definition of looking for trouble.

Therefore, any of the rioters who were armed deserved to be killed? Or is it only the people opposed to the rioters who are looking for trouble to such an extent that they no longer have a right to defend themselves?

No, it means precisely what it states.

You take a statement out its context and concoct a series of strawmen conclusions.

In all seriousness, are you feeling well?

 

[laughing dog]

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming.

Nah. It was an observation of the logic of your argument. The actual logical framing of your position is the same - it's blaming the victim for having caused their own victimization, and opining that if they just hadn't done something, they wouldn't have gotten themselves hurt.

No, it isn’t. The logic is that blaming the woman is illogical because wearing clothes is expected and not automatically arousing, while a civilian carrying a rifle in the open in public is threatening. You are adding another step - the necessary/appropriate response to a threat is to attack - which is untrue.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

That Rittenhouse showed supremely poor judgement isn't really in question. I've yet to interact with anyone who doesn't think he should have stayed home, or at a minimum shouldn't have been armed. That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute, however is whether Rittenhouse having made a poor decisions deprives him of the right to self defense.

Does the fact that his "poor judgement" consisted of threatening people with a gun come into this equation? Openly carrying a firearm is a threatening behaviour, in a way that wearing a short skirt most certainly is not.

I'm sure it seems unquestionably threatening to you... but for many americans who grew up around hunters and farmers it's not threatening in and of itself.

It's also irrelevant. Rittenhouse could have been standing there yelling epithets and it still wouldn't deprive him of the right to self defense when attacked.

How many of the protesters and rioters were armed, openly so? Do you also believe that those people should be stripped of the ability to defend themselves if someone decided that their guns were threatening?

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil.

Hunters and farmers do their gun using in rural areas, not in the city. He didn't engage in self defense, he was the aggressor.
Your belief is wrong; the political views of the people there, including Rittenhouse, are irrelevant (except from being a part of Rittenhouse's motive to go there, and do what he did). If it was conservatives protesting, and a "mad leftist" started shooting people to death, you can bet we would be criticizing him. Of course, there probably would in that case be a different and more sensible jury verdict.

If the idiot wouldn't have gone there in the first place none of this happens. Also he had no reason to go and had no right to own a firearm.

If Rosenbaum wouldn't have gone there in the first place, none of this happens. Rosenbaum had no reason to go, and had no right to chase, corner, and attack someone.

He had the right to go as per the First Amendment. If that was also Rittenhouse's purpose, he would also have a right to be there, but he went there not for free speech but with the clear aim to kill people, which he did.

 

[Derec]

#BLM held territory with armed force in Minneapolis? Are you refering to the riot? If so, that seems an intellectually dishonest characterization.

I am referring to #BLM/Antifa occupying so-called "George Floyd Square" for over a year.

 

[laughing dog]

nm

 

[Bomb#20]

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming. Her statement is ridiculous, ...

Your post is equating physically attacking an openly armed third person with finding the person alarming. Your statement is ridiculous.

No, it didn't. It indicated that Rittenhouse was accosted because he was open carrying a rifle which caused alarm, which is a perfectly normal reaction to seeing a person open carrying a rifle among a crowd, seeing the difference between a good guy with a gun and bad guy with a gun is pretty much too late.

Dude! Read your own sentence again! Don't think of what you now want it to have meant and decide it said that retroactively; read the text and apply your reading comprehension faculty. The subject of your sentence was not Rittenhouse; the subject of your sentence was "Emily Lake's post". Your claim about her post was not correct and nothing you tell us about Rittenhouse can wipe away your error. Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying a second person raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person justifying a second person physically attacking an openly armed third person. Emily raised no objection to anyone finding Rittenhouse alarming, or to anyone saying Rosenbaum's alarm was justified. Justifying his physical attack was what she criticized.

Emily Post decided to use sexual assault to make it seem unusual and unreasonable to find an open carrying person in a crowd alarming and actionable.

No, she did not. She used sexual assault to make it seem unusual and unreasonable to physically attack an open carrying person in a crowd. When Rosenbaum found Rittenhouse alarming and actionable, he could perfectly well have taken action like a sane person, by calling the police and telling them an alarming kid was brandishing a rifle in a crowd.

 

[Bomb#20]

*Someone explains exactly what's wrong with a statement*

Right wingers: "nuh uh!"

Which explanation of exactly what was wrong with someone's purported explanation of exactly what's wrong with a statement are you claiming is equivalent to "nuh uh!"?

 

[robnisch]

Open carry of guns in the USA is a modern myth.
Between 1870 and 1900 most towns and cities required that guns could not be openly carried.
In fact, most required that guns had to be given to the sheriff for safe keeping.
Movies and dime novels created the myth that a good guy with a gun was the best way to have a safe place.
https://alaskapublic.org/news/2018-08-31/ak-did-wyatt-earp-really-lose-his-pistol-in-juneau
I saw that gun many times.
It is not Earp's gun. But correct for the time.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

If the idiot wouldn't have gone there in the first place none of this happens.

And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

Also he had no reason to go and had no right to own a firearm. "Waving around a gun" and brandishing is the same thing.

He had his reasons to go, you just don’t like his reasons.

Do you feel better getting the aunt/uncle joke out of your system? It's old as Eve's tits, but I hope it gets you through the day.

I would ask about his "reasons" but I have less irritating treadmills to run on today.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

Apparently you find it insulting that I believe you're letting your political bias influence your views on this topic?

I do note that you didn't disagree with anything I said, not even in passing.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can get than "he was carrying a gun, so that was seen as threatening". Which also has nothing to do with "being against Rittenhouse for his political beliefs".

Was Grosskreutz threatening as well? Do you think other people present at the riot would be justified chasing, cornering, and attacking Grosskreutz as well?

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming.

Nah. It was an observation of the logic of your argument. The actual logical framing of your position is the same - it's blaming the victim for having caused their own victimization, and opining that if they just hadn't done something, they wouldn't have gotten themselves hurt.

No, it isn’t. The logic is that blaming the woman is illogical because wearing clothes is expected and not automatically arousing, while a civilian carrying a rifle in the open in public is threatening. You are adding another step - the necessary/appropriate response to a threat is to attack - which is untrue.

Oooh, you're so very close!

Just take that extra step back and consider the form of the arguments being made in this thread, with that "extra step" in mind. Because you're like right on the edge of agreeing with my view.

 

[Emily Lake]

That Rittenhouse showed supremely poor judgement isn't really in question. I've yet to interact with anyone who doesn't think he should have stayed home, or at a minimum shouldn't have been armed. That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute, however is whether Rittenhouse having made a poor decisions deprives him of the right to self defense.

Does the fact that his "poor judgement" consisted of threatening people with a gun come into this equation? Openly carrying a firearm is a threatening behaviour, in a way that wearing a short skirt most certainly is not.

I'm sure it seems unquestionably threatening to you... but for many americans who grew up around hunters and farmers it's not threatening in and of itself.

It's also irrelevant. Rittenhouse could have been standing there yelling epithets and it still wouldn't deprive him of the right to self defense when attacked.

How many of the protesters and rioters were armed, openly so? Do you also believe that those people should be stripped of the ability to defend themselves if someone decided that their guns were threatening?

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil.

Hunters and farmers do their gun using in rural areas, not in the city. He didn't engage in self defense, he was the aggressor.

He was the aggressor... by being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else? How do you figure that?

Your belief is wrong; the political views of the people there, including Rittenhouse, are irrelevant (except from being a part of Rittenhouse's motive to go there, and do what he did). If it was conservatives protesting, and a "mad leftist" started shooting people to death, you can bet we would be criticizing him. Of course, there probably would in that case be a different and more sensible jury verdict.

If the idiot wouldn't have gone there in the first place none of this happens. Also he had no reason to go and had no right to own a firearm.

If Rosenbaum wouldn't have gone there in the first place, none of this happens. Rosenbaum had no reason to go, and had no right to chase, corner, and attack someone.

He had the right to go as per the First Amendment. If that was also Rittenhouse's purpose, he would also have a right to be there, but he went there not for free speech but with the clear aim to kill people, which he did.

Rittenhouse absolutely had a right to be there.

I do not accept your assertion that he was there with the clear aim to kill people. That's you imagining a justification that makes it acceptable for Rosenbaum to have taken it upon himself to chase after a teen, corner him, and attack him.

 

[Emily Lake]

Open carry of guns in the USA is a modern myth.

Sure. Except for the 31 states that allow it.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-is-open-carry-and-which-states-allow-it/

 

[bilby]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

Apparently you find it insulting that I believe you're letting your political bias influence your views on this topic?

I do note that you didn't disagree with anything I said, not even in passing.

Well, I did; But I didn't bother to tell you about it, because you didn't try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is the thing, bilby. I don't believe that you - or most of the posters in this thread - actually genuinely believe that Rittenhouse was the aggressor and that Rosenbaum was only acting defensively. Rather, I think that you oppose Rittenhouse's political views, and because you oppose his beliefs, you feel that he deserved whatever happened to him. I genuinely think that if Rosenbaum had got hold of him and strangled him to death, you'd be just fine with that because you believe that Rittenhouse was on the wrong side. I believe that many of the posters in this thread are perfectly willing to see "the enemy" physically injured or killed, because you think your beliefs are the right beliefs and those that contradict your beliefs are therefore evil

Sounds like this person could give you some excellent advice:

Seriously, at least try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

Apparently you find it insulting that I believe you're letting your political bias influence your views on this topic?

I do note that you didn't disagree with anything I said, not even in passing.

Well, I did; But I didn't bother to tell you about it, because you didn't try to address the argument instead of just insulting me.

Well, I did; but you trimmed that part out and are pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[Derec]

Does the fact that his "poor judgement" consisted of threatening people with a gun come into this equation?

There is no evidence he threatened anyone with his rifle.

Openly carrying a firearm is a threatening behaviour, in a way that wearing a short skirt most certainly is not.

Not necessarily. And do you apply this to people on your side who openly carry firearms, for example the #BLMers who occupied the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle or the University Ave. area in Atlanta? Was Daniel Perry justified in shooting Garrett Foster because "openly carrying a firearm" is per se "threatening behaviour[sic]" in your estimation?

Hunters and farmers do their gun using in rural areas, not in the city. He didn't engage in self defense, he was the aggressor.

Ritt brought the gun for self-defense. Not for hunting, sure, but he was not the aggressor either. Rosenbaum was.

Your belief is wrong; the political views of the people there, including Rittenhouse, are irrelevant (except from being a part of Rittenhouse's motive to go there, and do what he did).

Motive: to protect a business from looters and rioters.
What he did: he successfully defended himself.

If it was conservatives protesting, and a "mad leftist" started shooting people to death, you can bet we would be criticizing him.

What about a scenario closer to the Rittenhouse case? What if a "mad rightist" attacked an armed leftist and he killed the attacker(s) in self defense? Would you still be calling for murder charges?

Of course, there probably would in that case be a different and more sensible jury verdict.

Given that your scenario is almost completely different than what happened in Kenosha, I would except the verdict to be different, yes.

He had the right to go as per the First Amendment.

He did not have the First Amendment right to try to set things on fire. He also did not have the First Amendment right to attack a teenager.

If that was also Rittenhouse's purpose, he would also have a right to be there, but he went there not for free speech but with the clear aim to kill people, which he did.

You are just making stuff up. There is no evidence that he went there "with the clear aim to kill people". Quite the opposite - he only used his firearm when he was attacked by a "mad leftist". He went there to protect a business. This, I think, stems from the same impulse to help the community that led him to clean the graffiti that #BLM and Antifa left all over town during the previous night.