Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Toni]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

I know, I know. He totally brought it on himself, he's to blame for being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. Did you see what he was wearing?

There's not a single person that night (except for perhaps cops and EMTs) who was there legally - therefore not a single person had clean hands by your logic.

I agree, actually. But people get pissed/anxious when someone points a semi auto weapon at them.

People also get terrified and anxious when a grown-ass adult chases them, corners them, and tries to physically attack them.

Why were grown ass adults chasing him?

Because Rosenbaum was already agitated, already aggressive, and Rittenhouse made a good target for him, I suppose.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

It's amazing how they'll pretend to know what's going on in our heads with such confidence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Re gun laws:

@ZiprHead -
Do you consider the AU model too lax?
@Emily Lake -
Do you consider the AU model too restrictive?

Just trying to narrow down the point of disagreement, if there is one.

From an unbiased and objective perspective, I'd say the AU model is somewhat too restrictive, but plausibly not unreasonable.

That said, however, there's a world of difference between people never having had a constitutional right to firearms and taking away a right.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

A 16 year old is more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behavior than a 12 year old but they do not have sufficient life experience nor brain development compared with someone in their 20’s. But because many physically resemble adults, some people conflate body size and secondary sexual characteristics with maturity and adulthood . To the great detriment of the 16 year olds and society as a whole.

Um... that's not actually true. Cognitively and developmentally a 16 year old is much more like a 22 year old than a 12 year old. I think you're really, really, really downplaying the role of puberty in cognition and decision making. Of course a 16 year old isn't exactly as developed as a 22 year old, but they're far closer to that than to 12.

 

[Emily Lake]

Teenagers are children.

Teenagers (14 to 19) are minors, but they aren't juveniles, hence not children.

 

[bilby]

Teenagers (14 to 19) are minors

Nitpick: 13 year olds are teenagers.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Also it's hilarious Emily thinks she can "break my brain" as though I haven't seen every possible argument on this forum over uh, what is it now, 20 years? Not to mention arguments I've heard elsewhere. Whoa, totally broke my brain.

 

[Emily Lake]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

If you are personally heartbroken every time a child anywhere on the planet dies, then you're never going to have time to get anything done in your life. I know it sounds very empathetic and caring to *say* that you care about a complete stranger's death... but it's performative. You can look down your nose at me as much as you want, and win yourself some internet points or whatever the fuck you think you're doing... but at the end of the day you are not actually grieving that Arius Thompson died three days ago. You don't even know who that is, and you sure as hell didn't care about Arius. You still don't care about Arius.

At best, there's a shared human understanding that the death of a child is abstractly sad. That does not in any way imply that you personally feel sad that a child you aren't even aware of has died.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

If you are personally heartbroken every time a child anywhere on the planet dies

Do you have anything other than straw man arguments?

 

[Emily Lake]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

It's amazing how they'll pretend to know what's going on in our heads with such confidence.

I don't understand what's going on in your head most of the time, Gen. That said, it's not even remotely plausible that you actually care about the death of a stranger you didn't even know existed until the media presented you with a story.

My father in law just died. Please go ahead and tell me how much you care about him. My niece died a month ago - tell me how much you care about her. My wo-worker's grandchild died earlier this year, I'm sure you care very, very, very deeply about him.

You don't, because you don't know any of them. You can certainly express sympathy for my loss, or my co-worker's, that's a reasonable and very human thing to do. You can certainly acknowledge that the death of a child is sad in a very abstract way, that's also very human.

But unless you personally knew any of them, you do not actually care about their deaths directly.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also it's hilarious Emily thinks she can "break my brain" as though I haven't seen every possible argument on this forum over uh, what is it now, 20 years? Not to mention arguments I've heard elsewhere. Whoa, totally broke my brain.

It's a humorous phrase, you know that don't you?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !

Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.

Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.

I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.

It's amazing how they'll pretend to know what's going on in our heads with such confidence.

But unless you personally knew any of them, you do not actually care about their deaths directly.

Yeah, but I never once claimed I do need to care about their deaths directly, and you're once again just assuming I made an argument I didn't make.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You know it's also probably vital to my mental wellbeing to not care what a random internet forum poster thinks about what is vital to my mental wellbeing or not.

 

[Toni]

Yes, I am still shocked and incredulous that you seem to believe that a 16 year old reasons more like a 22 year old than like a 12 year old.

A 16 year old is more likely to engage in all sorts of risky behavior than a 12 year old but they do not have sufficient life experience nor brain development compared with someone in their 20’s. But because many physically resemble adults, some people conflate body size and secondary sexual characteristics with maturity and adulthood . To the great detriment of the 16 year olds and society as a whole.

Um... that's not actually true. Cognitively and developmentally a 16 year old is much more like a 22 year old than a 12 year old. I think you're really, really, really downplaying the role of puberty in cognition and decision making. Of course a 16 year old isn't exactly as developed as a 22 year old, but they're far closer to that than to 12.

Not really.

Sure, we assign more ‘adult’ roles to a 16 year old than a 12 year old. Yes, a 16 year old is more likely to be able to engage in long term thinking than a 12 year old —and considerably less than a 22 year old, on average.

Treating a 16 year old like a 22 year old is cheating the 16 year old of precious years to grow and develop into the adult they could be.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not even a conservative though! It's intensely frustrating,

It is was a free country; you can call yourself whatever you fancy.
I s’pose not worshiping Trump makes you a screaming lib’rul in his book.
Requiring legal oversight/second opinions on emergency abortions

That's a false statement with respect to my views.

Really? My apology. I didn't realize you worshiped Trump.

and allowing punks carrying loaded rifles to demonstrations

You mean, allowing people to do legal things?

You're recommending that someone should have felt threatened and killed the little fucker.
I have to admit, that's hard to argue with.

and shoot people with impunity

Again, a false statement with respect to my views.

You're not real great at expressing your views then, since you don't object to the punk's actions.

might just make you a xenophobic conservotard to others.
My opinion is just my opinion, based on a presumably small sample of Emily. Don’t take it so hard.

It's a sample of your frothing imagination, not a reflection of reality.

Do tell. What part is imaginary and what is the reality you're asserting?

 

[laughing dog]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

My meager understanding of magazines for semi-automatic weapons is that 6 bullets is the minimum number in a magazine. Depending on whether the weapon is a handgun or a rifle, magazines can hold much more than 6 bullets. Some revolvers can hold up to 9 bullets (at least that is my understanding).

My point is that your response ignores the basic point that semi-automatic weapons typically have a larger capacity for bullets which allows a shooter to shoot MORE BULLETS than the typical revolver. More bullets mean more potential damage.

That might be your point, not sure it's Jimmy's point.

In your case, the issue is capacity... which has virtually nothing at all to do with the firearm being semi-automatic.

That’s silly. Revolvers hold 6 rounds while semiautomatics typically hold at least twice as many.

 

[laughing dog]

Teenagers are children.

Teenagers (14 to 19) are minors, but they aren't juveniles, hence not children.

Tell that to their parents.

Honestly, your responses suggest you know fuck all about children.

 

[Elixir]

Your options facing down a semi-automatic are fewer than a revolver. Then there is the damage by the bullet.

Because six bullets from a pistol somehow do more damage than six bullets from a revolver? It takes the same amount of time to pull the trigger six times for both, you know that, don't you? Are you imagining that all revolvers are old-west single actions?

My meager understanding of magazines for semi-automatic weapons is that 6 bullets is the minimum number in a magazine. Depending on whether the weapon is a handgun or a rifle, magazines can hold much more than 6 bullets. Some revolvers can hold up to 9 bullets (at least that is my understanding).

My point is that your response ignores the basic point that semi-automatic weapons typically have a larger capacity for bullets which allows a shooter to shoot MORE BULLETS than the typical revolver. More bullets mean more potential damage.

That might be your point, not sure it's Jimmy's point.

In your case, the issue is capacity... which has virtually nothing at all to do with the firearm being semi-automatic.

That’s silly. Revolvers hold 6 rounds while semiautomatics typically hold at least twice as many.

They also cycle more bullets more rapidly since the next bullet is chambered by the previous bullet's pressure. Plus, you can't slam a new clip in a revolver in under a second as can be done with a semi-auto. Maybe Emily imagines a gigantic revolver featuring a gigantic cylinder with like fifty chambers, and a motor to turn it.
Silly indeed. The so-called "capacity argument" really tries (unsuccessfully to date) to address and limit military-level abilities to fling lead, being available to the general public including mentally unbalanced teens.

 

[Elixir]

If you are personally heartbroken every time a child anywhere on the planet dies, then you're never going to have time to get anything done in your life.

Right on sister. Goes triple for a fetus.