TrueMetis Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: Also apparently looking for violence. Hence the gun no? Also, no you don’t get to nor should you be legally able to shoot a proud boy in the head without him physically threatening you anymore than he does to you. “Why can’t I just shoot and punch nazis without getting in some legal trouble and expect total protection.” Is something I never thought I had to answer. ... Were you under the impression I would expect that in such an event that the kid wouldn't have the book thrown at them? (assuming they weren't gunned down in the street beforehand) Not only do you really struggle with the idea that I might not give a shit about what the law says and instead be thinking for myself, but also that the fact that in such a situation yes the law would come down upon them like a ton of bricks when it hasn't in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse IS THE FUCKING POINT. Vary's in this hypothetical what was switched out was a white kid for a black kid, and the three random dudes for the Proud Boys. That was what was said "let's hypothetically assume that exactly the same scenario played out with opposite team colors", that how it's been framed pretty much the entire time. And yet despite having defended Rittenhouse constantly throughout these threads you're now taking the view that when it was a black kid that there was no threat to him physically. Even though if it is all the same otherwise you should be defending hypothetical black kid with equal vigor to Rittenhouse. So either you've gotten real fucking confused about what's being argued. Or you are telling on yourself in the worst possible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, TrueMetis said: Were you under the impression I would expect that in such an event that the kid wouldn't have the book thrown at them? Do you think they should? As in do you think they shouldn’t face any murder charges? 1 hour ago, TrueMetis said: Vary's in this hypothetical what was switched out was a white kid for a black kid, and the three random dudes for the Proud Boys. Give a detailed summary of each of those “random dudes” were doing before they shot. The first person was ranting about killing people, and tried to take Rittenhouse’s gun. You seem to think that trivial; can you explain why it wouldn’t be if it was a proud boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, TrueMetis said: Even though if it is all the same otherwise you should be defending hypothetical black kid with equal vigor to Rittenhouse. The hypothetical black kid would be well within his rights legally and morally to shoot the proud boys if they done the same things as those “random dudes.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 3 hours ago, Kalsandra said: The obvious implication of that is that it would be decidedly not ideologically opposite, which is the point i was making. Try again! Oh confidently spew nonessense. Got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 On 11/20/2021 at 2:53 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said: As been exhausted in saying; Wisconsin is an open-carry state. Having a gun out in the open can be not meaningfully interpreted as threatening enough to justify action against the holder. Hence “Open Carry” is a foolish, harmful, and dangerous law… one that my State just passed. Morons who need a long rifle to pick up a pack of chicken nuggets from McDonald’s or a gallon of milk from Ingles should never leave the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 Open carry. Honestly, in 2021, wtf is this shit? The 2nd Amendment will be the death of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 I wonder how many of these plums have tiny penises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straits Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: looking for violence This is generally true. I like the quote "the blade itself incites to deeds of violence". I am not sure if this resonates with many Americans, given the gun culture. Guns are treated as a morally neutral presence in tense situations, which is utterly insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Hence “Open Carry” is a foolish, harmful, and dangerous law… one that my State just passed. Morons who need a long rifle to pick up a pack of chicken nuggets from McDonald’s or a gallon of milk from Ingles should never leave the house. Letting people open carry long guns is a bad idea. But these laws, in my opinion, are a reaction to the ongoing drive to restrict gun rights going back to before Heller and continuing today with lawsuits against gun manufacturers, state restrictions, discussion of how the 2nd amendment should be repealed, etc. As an example, my blue state has a 'duty to retreat' law, meaning if I'm confronted by armed home invaders I have to prove that not only was my life at risk but that I couldn't escape the house in order to successfully argue self defense, which is nuts. It's also the reason why states started enacting stand your ground laws, which then somehow morphed into open carry which is equally nutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 16 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said: Oh, come on @Toth. I genuinely mean it when I say you're way too smart to draw such a twisted and reductionistic summary of my post. Your feelings are your own - and it's your prerogative to be as outraged as you like (though, do reserve some of that outrage for members "your" side who pointlessly escalated conflict and tried to hurt one of "theirs", as well). I'm not disputing that.My point was that we have reached the stage of such a animosity and bitterness between two polarities that concepts such as fairness or justice or reciprocity or truth cease to matter any more. Rittenhouse (again I stress: despite my personal distaste for him) would he crucified here no matter how justified his self-defense was; and would be condemned for exactly the same things his hypothetical ideological opposite would be praised for (which was the entire point of my hypothetical scenario). Pursuit of truth and fairness - which should be the foundations of any society, and especially its legal system - have been replaced by ideological warfare, where "our" side gets unconditional support and "their" side gets unconditional demonization. It's a long-term problem, and a huge problem at that - for any society that seeks to advance and prosper. Ponder on that next time before you try to paint me as some kind of murder apologist. This is a fallacious conclusion you've come to here. Rittenhouse left his state and went to "protect property" during protests and "riots" while armed with a gun. If you were to give me a 100 variations of "well, what if it went down this way?" I'd probably hate all 100 because he traveled with a gun to the site of a protest to stop the protesters. There are lots of reasons I support self-defense. Going and looking for trouble, then being forced to kill someone because you needed to defend yourself, is not one of those. This has nothing to do with polarization (meaning two sides have retreated to their corners). This has to do with one side continually pushing and infringing on the rest of us and asking us to go sit on the opposite pole from them. Polarization doesn't happen when one pole resists the other, it's the settled outcome of opposing forces. If we were polarized, the crazies on the right would be on one end of the world, and, (I guess?), everyone else would inhabit the other side. I will be frank with you: polarization is a reductive and stupid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 Also, I find it funny that a topic like this, run into the ground by anyone else would be moved to another thread unless the mods and Ran like it, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 @sologdin, "Be armed and be dangerous." But it was just one other crazed Congresswoman. Welcome to the shit show that's coming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 How about these -- are they stand your ground, self-defense, situations in which the perpetrators felt their lives in dangers? Should they get off without repercussion and punishment, should they go on Tucker Carlson for millions of dollars, should they become congressional interns? Will they, in fact? What's different about them from Rittenhouse and so many others? https://www.npr.org/2017/12/01/567789605/cyntoia-brown-case-highlights-how-child-sex-trafficking-victims-are-prosecuted https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/06/22/chrystul-kizer-child-sex-trafficking-killing-freed-bail/ https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-father-killed-daughter-boyfriend-selling-sex-trafficking-ring-20211103-ekcxfgchsrekbkuj27swhgeplq-story.html This is what happens when everyone is armed and visibly so. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-guns-self-defense.html Quote .... Indeed, once everyone in public spaces is armed and operating under a sprawling regime of “stand your ground” and citizen’s arrest statutes plus a mushrooming mistrust of law enforcement, how will courts ever sort out who instigated and who responded? As Ferzan put it in her law review article: “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?” If you can arm yourself because you have declared yourself a substitute for law enforcement and then you claim people were grabbing for your weapon so you killed them with it, are you always justified? Must we always assume that the dead victim, who cannot testify, was the aggressor? .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 In the meantime this map say it all about USA YAY! https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2021/11/21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 It's wonderful to see Gary Trudeau still kicking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 SHOCK POLL: Matthew McConaughey Tops Texas Gov. Greg Abbott By 8 in Head-to-Head Matchup, Clobbers Beto Nearly 2-to-1 (msn.com) Quote the actor — in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup — tops current Gov. Greg Abbott (R) by 8 points. In all, 43 percent of respondents say they would back McConaughey, 35 percent would support Abbott, and 22 percent would pick someone else. I mean, if you want to have a sacrificial lamb might as well be the actor with fairly middle of the road positions rather than a career politician. Crosstabs here: dmn-uttylernov2021.pdf Note that the election is a long way away, and even if its a pretty legit poll, its just one. Still, its fun to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 So remember that weird ass document signed by Manchin and Schumer that Manchin only made public two months later? Pelosi confirms even she knew nothing about it: Quote NYT’s Carl Hulse has the inside story about that call Speaker NANCY PELOSI was seen making in the middle of the Congressional Baseball Game in September. On the other end of the line was none other than JOE MANCHIN. “In a moment captured by C-SPAN cameras that went viral, Ms. Pelosi appeared to grow agitated as Mr. Manchin, according to sources apprised of the call, told her that he could not accept more than $1.5 trillion — and was prepared to provide a document clearly laying out his parameters for the package, benchmarks that House Democrats had been clamoring to see. [...] “It was only after her call with Mr. Manchin at the baseball game that Ms. Pelosi discovered that the West Virginian’s demands were contained in a sort of makeshift contract he had delivered to Senator CHUCK SCHUMER, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, in late July. The document, which was signed by both men, had been kept secret — including from her — for months. ‘I would have liked to have known that,’ Ms. Pelosi, said in an interview on Friday, recounting how she felt blindsided. ‘However, it was what it was.’” This is pretty damn egregious by Schumer. The most charitable assumption is that he simply thought he could change Manchin's mind, but to keep it secret from even Pelosi...So for two months she's trying to thread the needle to keep her caucus together doing their own thing - not to mention every Dem member of the Senate Budget Committee - all the while Schumer and Manchin are on an entirely different wavelength. If you wanna complain about the delay in passage of the infrastructure bill and/or protracted negotiations and Democratic infighting, look to those two for blame, not leftists or House moderates. On the other hand, looks like's Schumer's brinksmanship on the debt ceiling is working out quite well, as the drama is being dialed down: Quote “We cannot let the full faith and credit of the United States lapse, and we are focusing on getting this done in a bipartisan way,” Schumer told reporters. Asked about Democrats wanting the debt ceiling to be bipartisan, McConnell sidestepped, instead predicting that “we'll figure out how to avoid default. We always do.” The two had a rare in-person meeting — a day after two sources told The Hill that they were talking — with McConnell saying afterward that they had a “good conversation.” Sounds like the most likely compromise is the GOP agreeing to an expedited reconciliation process to allow Dems to pass it on their own (which effectively isn't all that different from how they temporarily raised it last month). Schumer taking a hardline on this clearly has worked - the threat of the GOP weaponizing raising the debt ceiling as a campaign issue is almost entirely neutralized based on McConnell's repeated acquiescence. Even better, the ongoing negotiations continue to fan the flames of GOP infighting between Trump and McConnell. So much for all the handwringing about Schumer's take being "foolishly dangerous" and "McConnell doesn't bluff." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: I mean, if you want to have a sacrificial lamb might as well be the actor with fairly middle of the road positions rather than a career politician. Crosstabs here: dmn-uttylernov2021.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 44 minutes ago, DMC said: So remember that weird ass document signed by Manchin and Schumer that Manchin only made public two months later? Pelosi confirms even she knew nothing about it: This is pretty damn egregious by Schumer. The most charitable I remain steadfast that Schumer deserves more blame than anyone. What an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 6 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said: I'd probably hate all 100 because he traveled with a gun to the site of a protest to stop the protesters. Where did he stop any protester from doing anything in regard to protesting through the use of force? 6 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said: Going and looking for trouble, then being forced to kill someone because you needed to defend yourself, is not one of those So any attempt to disengage from a violent situation doesn't matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.