Jump to content

US Politics: Turkeys Available Here


DMC
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

The Proud Boys learned all they wanted to when the verdict came down.

Yeah, if a person says they’ll take their guns and kill them—they may be looked at as having a valid claim of self-defense
Shocker.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ran said:

Armed vigilantes for me, but not for thee"?

Also “child-soldier for me, but not for thee.”

the father here seriously reminds me of all the adults who could and should have told Rittenhouse “no you’re not grown, go play an amongus” but instead just actively gave him encouragement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

And maybe pretty teenage girls would be best advised not to walk alone, at night, through dark alleys, in bad neighborhoods.  But if one does make such a mistake, and is attacked by a pair of rapists, and she pulls out a gun and shoots them, I would say she is justified.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But accurate.

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hey, if the girl hadn’t walked down an ally, stayed out late, got a gun she couldn’t legally Carry alone, two people would be alive. 
Would this sound better if on Twitter she said Blue lives matter?

Well thanks for discarding even the slightest pretense about what you both are about. These two instances are not remotely comparable and either you genuinely think they are, in which case your head is so far up your ass there's no point continuing, or you're being disingenuous because you think its going to hand you another "gotcha" in which case its still not worth continuing.

So I'm going to honour Ran's request and check out of this repetition, but just needed to say fuck this rape apologist bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Well thanks for discarding even the slightest pretense about what you both are about. These two instances are not remotely comparable and either you genuinely think they are, in which case your head is so far up your ass there's no point continuing, or you're being disingenuous because you think its going to hand you another "gotcha" in which case its still not worth continuing.

So I'm going to honour Ran's request and check out of this repetition, but just needed to say fuck this rape apologist bullshit.

If I may add one last thing [an observation I'd seen elsewhere; I got no problem dropping it either] when one considers the Rittenhouse debacle, how many women are jammed up in the penal system who were protecting themselves by killing their abusers? I wonder how they feel, now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, karaddin said:

These two instances are not remotely comparable

Explain how Rittenhouse is morally responsible for the deaths of the two men showed inclination to kill whilst the hypothetical girl isn’t morally responsible for the deaths of her potential assaulters.

They both chose to go somewhere to where they could reasonably anticipate would have violent actors, and both carried guns knowing the utilization of which could lead to someone’s death.

Would you see it a fair comparison if she also couldn’t legally own the firearm she was carrying?

26 minutes ago, karaddin said:

just needed to say fuck this rape apologist bullshit.

The girl in this scenario had moral and legal right to defend herself.

Whatever actions she could have taken does not excuse the malicious nature of those who’d abuse her.

Rittenhouse is not morally responsible  for the deaths of men who he had every reason to think planned on killing him.

 

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Explain how Rittenhouse is morally responsible for the deaths of the two men showed inclination to kill whilst the hypothetical girl isn’t morally responsible for the deaths of her potential assaulters.

They both chose to go somewhere to where they could reasonably anticipate would have violent actors, and both carried guns knowing the utilization of which could lead to someone’s death.

The girl in this scenario had moral and legal right to defend herself.

Whatever actions she could have taken does not excuse the malicious nature of those who’d abuse her.

Rittenhouse is not morally responsible  for the deaths of men who he had every reason to think planned on killing him.

 

 

JFC, because you should be allowed to walk down a street without being raped, but you shouldn't be allowed to wander around a riot with a firearm when you are wholly inequipped to deal with a conflict situation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

If I may add one last thing [an observation I'd seen elsewhere; I got no problem dropping it either] when one considers the Rittenhouse debacle, how many women are jammed up in the penal system who were protecting themselves by killing their abusers? I wonder how they feel, now. 

Some probably agree with you and others may not etc etc. most probably  will not care about this case because they haven’t hyped up it’s importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also just another point of distinction, there are potential explanations for the behaviour of the people who were shot by Rittenhouse which are not acts of evil. Mental illness in the case of Rosenbaum, attempting to disarm someone that (from his perspective which helpfully has been declared irrelevant since he's dead) just shot someone else in the case of Anthony Huber.

There's no "non rapey" explanation for attempting to rape a woman. But you fucking know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

JFC, because you should be allowed to walk down a street without being raped

Yes. IMO it doesn’t matter if the gun the woman used was legally hers or she could legally use it. It doesn’t matter if the girl was violating a city-wide curfew or traveled to another state twenty minutes from home. Bringing that up incessantly would be victim-blaming.

2 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

but you shouldn't be allowed to wander around a riot

Morally I have no problem with that by itself either. 

Legally I understand in the case of Rittenhouse he as violating a curfew which should preclude him from being on the street.

3 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

with a firearm

Eh.

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

when you are wholly inequipped to deal with a conflict situation? 

I think Rittenhouse did what could reasonably be expected in the conflict situation he found himself.
 

He tried to runaway and only used violence when that was proving uneventful—the men chasing him telling him they’ll kill him, wouldn’t let up and started firing a gun.

At a certain I don’t think his offenses prior  to this Matter in terms of how he’s allowed to utilize force. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Mental illness in the case of Rosenbaum

Sure, and if Rosenbaum had actually killed Rittenhouse he probably should have been sent to a mental hospital instead of prison

But Rittenhouse isn’t obliged to forgoe defending himself because the person he has reason to think is trying to kill him—by doing things such as  saying he’ll kill Rittenhouse and trying to take his gun—is mentally ill. 

34 minutes ago, karaddin said:

attempting to disarm someone

It’s hard to think of a stranger’s benevolent intentions when they pull a gun on you.

@Ran I apologize for the continued engagement of hypotheticals but I do think it can potentially  help people think on a situation without their initial bias. At least to the same degree.

But I see how it can just spiral.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to those goal posts being moved at breakneck speed! That's not an argument for Rittenhouse's guilt, its a fucking difference between an attempted rapist and someone at a protest against racist policing. Seriously done now, have fun repeating this act another 50 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did anyone check far right populist websites to see if they decided to become decent members of society after the arbery verdict, or if they still promote the same fascist oplocratic doctrine discovered by concerned boarders after the rittenhouse verdict? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, karaddin said:

There's no "non rapey" explanation for attempting to rape a woman. B

Some mentally ill people have committed sexual assault whilst they weren’t in a state to not understand  the enormity of their actions.

https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/local/2021/09/17/brooklyn-man-who-raped-woman-ruled-not-guilty-reason-insanity-connecticut-verdict/8314588002/
 

It would not be up to the potential victims to consider their attackers sanity before they take step they need to defend themselves—including if it means using a firearm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

I think Rittenhouse did what could reasonably be expected in the conflict situation he found himself.
 

 

 

Put himself in. It didn't just happen around him while he was going about his business. 

He was a scared little boy with big gun who didn't have a clue what he was doing. This isn't entirely a criticism of him, grown men who are not trained in combat or law enforcement shouldn't be anywhere near a gun or a riot, whether its with the best of intentions or not.

I've seen 20 year PCs panic like shit, so nobody without the necessary experience should put themselves anywhere near this situation. 

Edited by BigFatCoward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Listen to those goal posts being moved at breakneck speed! That's not an argument for Rittenhouse's guilt, its a fucking difference between an attempted rapist and someone at a protest against racist policing. Seriously done now, have fun repeating this act another 50 times.

What goal-posts have been moved from my end?

Again—and you know this because you’ve been told this—rosenbaun wasn’t a protester. He wasn’t protesting police violence. He was a guy going around saying he’d murder people if he found them alone and armed. He was not on your side. You don’t need to pretend his death was due to him being woke. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Put himself in.

Have you ever heard the phrase “stay off the damn road” it’s a common saying by the right when a protester on left gets murdered or injured by a malicious driver.

At certain point one can’t be morally liable for the actions of others even if they willingly got into a risky situation.

if instead of just a dark alley a person was about to be raped in the midst of a riot they went to(to protest, to counter protest, loot whatever) should they have less options in terms of how they’re allowed to defend themselves in comparison to people who stayed home? I don’t think so.

 

51 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

He was a scared little boy with big gun who didn't have a clue what he was doing.

Probably. Schools don’t allow 17 year old to go on field trips without their parents permission for a reason of course.

51 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

This isn't entirely a criticism of him, grown men who are not trained in combat or law enforcement shouldn't be anywhere near a gun or a riot, whether its with the best of intentions or not.

I can agree to that. You’re more likely to accident to kill a member of your family than save one.

51 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I've seen 20 year PCs panic like shit, so nobody without the necessary experience should put themselves anywhere near this situation. 

Sure.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...