Total posts: 5,890
-->
@sadolite
I wasn’t talking about scientists who study electric cars, I’m talking about scientists who study carbon emissions. Your central claim is that electric cars cause just as big a carbon footprint as gas powered cars. I’m just wondering how you square your belief with the fact that the people who spend their lives studying carbon emissions don’t seem to know this.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
How and where do you believe it contradicts or at least fails to support what I’m saying?
You didn’t give one example to support your central claim; that postmodernism “has since grown into all of the West’s institutions”.
Where can you concede it does support some of what I’m saying?
I can’t concede anything there until you can give a concrete example of what you are talking about. You claimed in your OP that postmodernism is responsible for a “downslide” in our society since the enlightenment in addition to growing into all of the West’s institutions, so you’re not talking about some small fringe group as you later suggested by referring to it as the “far left”. You’ll need to clarify that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The yes was in regards to God’s capability to issue commands not what that command should be classified as, hence why I added the caveat after saying yes.
The classification of his command is where the contradiction is.
We both agreed that if there is a God, he has the capability of ordering someone to torture infants for fun. Once you accept that idea, that’s where the Euthyphro dilemma begins.
The question of how would it be classified is the point. Moral and immoral are direct negations of each other, so the law of excluded middle applies. Both is not a coherent answer. Neither is not a coherent answer. It’s necessarily one or the other, says the laws of logic.
If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).
If the answer is immoral, then God cannot be the source of morality.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the great number of people believing Kyle shot a black man, brought a gun over state lines...etc... was just created out of thin air....
Believing something that is not true, and believing that objective truth itself is not real are two completely different things.
I really don’t know why you need that explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, it means He’s only WILLING to command moral acts, there’s a difference. Not opting to choose an immoral act isn’t equivalent to not having the ability to choose an immoral act.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.
Does God have the capability of issuing the command to torture infants for fun? Yes or No?
Note: I didn’t ask you if he would be willing, I’m asking you of he has that capability, just as you or I do. This is a very simple question.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
f you read my OP (much) more carefully, you will see that I’m not saying that postmodernism is representative of the Democratic Party. You’re reading things I haven’t written. Heck, even my title says “far left.”
Which is why I dedicated the bulk of my post to talking about representative groups and when one becomes worthy of attention.
BUT you will also read in my OP that I say postmodernism has grown in various western institutions
And yet you gave zero examples of any institution that exhibits this ideology. You did however bring up quite a bit to suggest you are talking about a far more significant portion of the left than you are admitting now. Let’s recap;
“leftism seems to embrace postmodernism”
“It used to be on the fringes of political discourse, but it has become much more mainstream in the 21st century”
“If you ever hear someone declaring that society needs to “reimagine” something [like say… the police?], that is likely postmodernist thinking.”
And then you went on to list a bunch of right wing trigger buzzwords like patriotism, capitalism, genderism, identity politics… it’s like your post is straight out of Fox News.
The only thing typically associated with the political right you opened to criticism is evangelical Christianity and its disregard for science, but then defended it by claiming that they won’t trust science if they feel like postmodernism has tainted science, which is a whole conversation on its own.
So I’m sorry to disappoint you, I did read your post and I did read your link. Perhaps you need to be more clear in what you are trying to convey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why does it have to be either or? The two aren’t mutually exclusive
Yes, they are.
If god commanding something makes it moral, then necessarily anything he commands will be moral. So if he says to torture infants for fun, torturing infants for fun is now moral.
This is incompatible with god commanding something because it is moral. If it is necessarily moral then its negation would necessarily be immoral, at which point God commanding it would necessarily be immoral.
The way most theorists try to wiggle out of this is to claim that it’s gods nature to only command moral acts, which is a nonsense cop out. If that’s the case then God is limited in what decisions he can make which makes him impotent. It also goes against the very idea that he cannot contradict his own morality since he clearly has the ability to create immoral beings, which leads to even more problems but I’m going to stop there for now.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
That has nothing to do with the part of your post I quoted and responded to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If age weren’t the primary factor, you could have left it out of your law complaint entirely, and your point would have been clearer and easier to discuss,
Or, instead of only responding to one part of my post you could have responded to the entire thing. You talked about the 17 year olds part but ignored the “roaming through the streets with AR15’s” part. Both are important because they both point to the same thing… our gun laws are absurd. The fact that he was 17 was not the point, it added to the point, but by itself sounds silly which is why when you pull it out and ignore the rest it comes off as a bad faith attempt to score forum points. Especially when you then turn around and criticize me for evading your questions while you are actively evading mine.
So to recap my actual issue from legal standpoint (my main issue as I’ve made clear on this site is more ethical than legal), is the fact that our gun laws are absurd. Specifically here when considering self defense, it has no regard for the context that created the situation in the first place. It’s along the same lines as the George Zimmerman defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No what’s incoherent is asking me questions on a claim I never said.
There’s nothing incoherent about questions you just don’t want to answer.
You were perfectly fine telling us that god decides what is or is not moral “through objectivity” but now that I prod you further all you do is shut down and then use the fact that you shut down as some sort of defense.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Your post basically boils down to a declaration of “I don’t believe you,”
More like… your claim is BS, please provide real evidence or examples that this ideology has anything to do with the left.
with an ad hominem tu quoque tossed in
Tu quoque means you too, which I’m not saying because I’m not owning the allegation.
There will always be whack jobs on every end of the political spectrum, so to find one and then claim they’re representative of their political group is a lazy and disingenuous tactic. So if we’re going to have a conversation about any political group it needs to be a group large enough to warrant attention. There is no group on the left waging war with reality worthy of discussion, but there absolutely is on the right, so I find it odd that you would decide to go on a rant against one and not the other when the other is politically significant.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
moral confusion, gender confusion, identity politics, anti-capitalism, collectivism, anti-Westernism, anti-patriotism, and even skepticism over the inherent objectivity of mathematics.
Other then the last one, which you’ll find no where on the left, nothing here is about objectivity. Morality is subjective. Identity politics itself has nothing to do with objectivity. Capitalism, Collectivism, Westernism, patriotism… all have nothing to do with objectivity. And gender confusion is a typical right wing strawman. No one is claiming the biological sex of the person is up for debate.
Meanwhile when it comes to matters that actually are about objectivity, things like science and who actually won the 2020 election for example, reality denying is entirely a right wing problem. The last right wing president told over 30k lies in his 4 years in office and is still the leading voice on the right. You really need to re-examine where the issue lies.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
You’re confusing Biden and his administration for the former guy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Fair enough, but do you think there is merit to my point about branding? I find that teams switching their jerseys so often leaves me with a sense of blankness (is that really a word?) when it comes to thinking of the image of the player. When I think of Micheal Jordan, the Red Bull’s jersey with that number 23 is what I think about. When I think of Lebron James during his Cleveland years, the only image that comes to mind is Lebron James. They wore so many jerseys none of them stick out to me.
In the short run this isn’t important, but I believe in the long run it could do a lot of damage to the league. Sports is all about branding and imagery. Look what happened to baseball during the 70’s and 80’s…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe God gives moral commands that’s all, I said nothing of what came first between the chicken or the egg
I know, I’ve asked you twice now and gotten no answer. The fact that you are unwilling to even think about this question says quite a bit about you.
The question is called the euthyphro dilemma, and it’s called a dilemma for a reason; no matter which way you answer the question your conception of god falls apart. The reason it falls apart is because it is incoherent. The fact that it is incoherent should be enough to get you to stop believing in it or at the very least recognize that you have serious work to do to make it work. But everyone is different, you don’t have to care about being rational, logic and reason don’t have to mean anything to you, but at least accept that and stop trying to tell others how they should think when you are unwilling to think for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You’re not looking for comprehensive answers, you’re looking for gotchas. I talked about 17 year olds running around strapped with AR15’s, that’s clearly a reference to gun laws themselves yet all you asked was if it would have been ok if he were 18. There’s nothing about that which suggests you are looking for a real answer.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
95% of all electricity produced to charge electric cars comes from fossil fuels that are burned and released into the atmosphere. Only difference is it is released into a concentrated area and then spreads out. Fossil fuels are used to make electric cars. Electric cars cant even be made without fossil fuels.
I wonder when someone is going to tell the scientists who’ve spent their whole lives studying this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You began by criticizing Atheism on its subjectivity regarding moral issues. If you admit that religion is just as subjective then what is your issue?
The fact that religions have rules written down on paper for all to follow is not a virtue. What would make you think it is? As far as I can tell you seem to take issue with the idea of having to think for yourself about issues of morality, and seem to believe that if we’re all told what to think then everything would be better. But there’s no evidence of that. The people who flew planes into the WTC believed in a god. People will always use their own moral systems to justify their natural inclinations. You brag about the Ten Commandments but the most common book you will find on death row is the Bible.
And no, pop culture is not how atheists determine right from wrong, that’s just plain stupid. Atheists overwhelmingly believe in humanism and secular morality, which is far more moral than the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even if I agreed to that definition God isn’t an individual He’s a deity.
But you invoke him as if he were an individual. Please explain in what sense a deity differs from a person. Does he have thoughts? Desires? Does he make decisions? If the answer to the questions above is yes, then he is an individual in any coherent sense of the word. If not, then you have a lot of explaining to do and can start with where the Ten Commandments came from.
I don’t know ask God.
I’m asking you because it’s your claim. You’re the one who believes it, so you’re the one who should have an answer. If you are not even willing to engage in the thought of how to square this circle then you have no business telling anyone else anything about him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Seems more like evasive answers on your part, but it’s ok with me if you don’t like my questions.
I answered your question directly. It was the first sentence of my post which you conveniently missed..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I meant he says he's pro-BLM but to call him the opposite.
Is there something wrong with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It looks as though Rittenhouse was excused on that aspect because of a poorly written exception to firearm age restrictions. One year older, and you will accept it as legal, then?
No. Age is part of the problem, but it’s not the only issue.
While we’re on simple answers to simple questions… A man decides to head into a downtown area that’s experiencing civil unrest armed with an AR15. By the end of the night two people are killed by that AR15. Do you find this result surprising?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because such a standard is 'subject' to his choosing.That doesn’t mean the same thing as subjective.
Yes, it absolutely does. Subjective means *subject to* the individual. In your question, it is subject to God.
OK, so how then does a god decide what's moral or immoral?Through objectivity.
This answer is every bit as meaningless as it is incoherent.
Let’s try this… when God gives a moral command, does he command it because it is moral or is it moral because he commands it?
Created:
Posted in:
Just saw the new Orlando Magic black and orange, like WTF is that? Feels like a completely different team, and they don’t just switch the jerseys, they have a whole alternate home court.
It’s just the latest example, but I feel like over the years and these last few in particular I can’t keep up with what anyone is wearing. I’ve always thought branding was very important in sports, and while this may increase jersey sales in the short run I think long term it is very harmful to the league.
Anyone else think the same, or is it just me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because term “objective standard” is just as incoherent as the term “married bachelor”. A standard is what everything else is judged against, but one has to choose which standard applies. That will always be subjective. The fact that many of us came into this world being told which standard to follow and therefore never had to make that choice ourselves doesn’t mean we are not still making the choice everyday to continue following it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You ever heard of the ten commandments from the Christion religion. All religions have suggested limits on behavior. Atheism does not.
The Ten Commandments are nothing more than moral pronouncements, there is nothing about them that makes them objective. You can accept them or reject them.
If you accept them, why? Who made that decision?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That’s because the democrats and MSM both hold the same core value: reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
17 year olds should not be able to roam the streets with AR15’s
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People win Darwin awards every day and nobody bats an eye.
That child rapist was totally unable to be rehabilitated
In the end, the lead culprit got himself killed over a dumpster fire that he wanted to see burn the world down around him
Rosembaum's life ended on a spit and oil covered pavement over a goddamn dumpster fire.
Do you enjoy having conversations with yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Kyle, I agree with you, is both not the issue and is a scumbag. Due his actions that night, the 18 year old that purchased the firearm for him is gonna get found guilty now. Kyle posed as an EMT to get in and seek out action and trouble, he's probably a little sociopathic and/or narcissistic.I got no doubts about that.Until people hate guns being easily available to all sorts of citizens with easy access more than the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse happened to get hold of an AR-15, they won't properly understand the issue.
Sounds to me like we agree on the issue at hand here. Let me know if there is something I’m misinterpreting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This is doublespeak— jail? Yes. Guilty of breaking any laws? No.
My very next words were… “But that itself is the problem - This isn’t about Rittenhouse”
And yet your response portrays my post as making no sense because you act like it was all about Rittenhouse. Why? Are you reading what I have to say with the intent of understanding it, or with the intent of combing through it to find validation in your chase for amusement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Any attempt to create common ground would also be completely hypocritical because atheism by its definition means everything is subjective. An atheist cant tell another person what they are doing is wrong. There is no standard to measure wrong.
First of all, the idea of common ground has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes in a god. Believing or not in a god also has nothing to do with objectivity vs subjectivity. These are categorically different things.
But more to the point, when it comes to matters of right vs wrong, religion offers no solutions to the problems it identifies in atheism. Religion does not offer an objective standard because the concept itself is incoherent. All it does is point to a god and claim he is the standard, but even if he exists he is just as subjective a standard as any other you can point to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
IE: forcing everyone to comply to inject themselves with untested experimental drugs for instance
That’s why we had clinical trials.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Atheism is no different than religion, Atheists believe what they believe and so does everyone else.
Believing something is not what religion means. Religion is about adherence to a deity, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. They’re literally opposites.
Welcome to subjectivity, a world where nothing matters and there are no standards.
This is just pure projection. There is no link between subjectivity and whether something matters. And BTW, God does not solve subjectivity, all he could do is impose his subjective will on all of us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I've seen the president himself and Kamala both strongly imply (but avoid explicitly stating) that they are completely behind the movement in the media and society that supports sending Kyle to prison for what he did
I don’t think you’re paying attention to what people are actually arguing.
Should Kyle be in jail for what he did? I would say yes. Should he have been found guilty of murder? No. Should he have been found guilty of any statutory crime? As far as I am aware of, no. But that is itself the problem.
This isn’t about Rittenhouse. It’s about gun culture in America. Imagine what people in other countries are thinking when they look at us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You don’t think the Vice President, certain congresspeople, or the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin are credible left wing figures? Or the President claiming to be angry about the verdict?
Are you listening to what they’re actually saying?
Other than perhaps Bill Maher, who exactly do you refer to here?
Literally every single person I’ve heard talk about this. Sorry I didn’t take a list of names. Watch something other than Fox News and you’ll here these points of view as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What about people who thought the verdict was right, but are still angry about the verdict?
As in people who think the fact that a 17 year old can strap himself with an AR15 and head right in the middle of a downtown area the police are telling people to stay away from, then end up killing 2 people and suffer no repercussions? What about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What I'm seeing from the left-wing is major hypocrisy, double standards and bullcrap going on right now.They are saying Kyle, who I agree was very unwise to have been there, deserves to be convicted of murder
While I am certainly aware that there are elements of the left that believe this, I have yet to hear this view expressed by any credible left wing figure. Every figure I seen talk about it has shared my basic overview; it was wrong for him to decide to go there and the fact that what he did broke no laws is itself the problem.
Focusing on the people who think the verdict itself was wrong is like the left focusing on Marjorie Taylor Green (even though I would argue she is far more representative than this)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe electing politicians that don't divide American citizens up would be a start.
This is a joke right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved.
I’ve already explained all of this. Feel free to respond to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
u just keep ignoring all the evidence.
No, I keep explaining to you why it doesn’t qualify as evidence. Do you have a response to the points I made? Would you like to explain how something qualifies as evidence to you and have a real conversation about it instead of just repeating the same refuted allegations?
Do you understand what validity means? Do you understand what necessity in this context means and why it’s important?
by definition when people r dying and say they're experiencing the afterlife, that's evidence for the afterlife
Then you are accepting the tautological definition of evidence, which is meaningless and a complete waste of time. We might as well be debating whether “it is what it is” is an accurate statement.
it's a really big number where when measured, people almost always get it right.
There is no way to measure it because that would require a controlled environment. I’ve already explained this. Respond to it.
but really it's more than just consistent given it's not plausible for the alternatives to be true. for example, it shouldn't be the case that people only hallucinate family and dead people... if all it is is a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent.
First of all, I’ve already alluded to the fact that these are not mere hallucinations. NDE’s occur when the brain is in a state unlike any normal hallucination or when the brain is on drugs, so there is no reason we would expect their experiences to follow the exact same patterns. Given that they typically occur in a state where the individual believes they’re going to die, suggesting it’s unreasonable for the brain in this state to consistently produce visions of family and/or the afterlife is absurd.
But more importantly, your incredulity is not an argument. It’s not logic, it’s not reason. It’s just you making shit up and then claiming others are being irrational for not accepting what sounds right to you.
The way we determine what is likely to happen in this situation is by studying what happens in these situations. That’s called observation, the essence of science.
you just dont like the 'degree' by which NDEs are shown to be valid or repeatable. anyone can measure all the evidence i've shown, and reach the same conclusion... plus many people consistently experience this, another aspect showing repeatability. just because you can't go to a lab and do all this stuff, doesn't mean it's absolutely not repeatable
Being able to reproduce the experiment in lab settings is the literal definition of repeatability. We’re not using these terms colloquially, you want to have a conversation about logic and reason, so we are talking scientifically.
The fact that it has happened a bunch of times is not repeatability. Being able to look at someone else’s data is not repeatability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Every BLM riot is vigilantism.
Which is why I like the vast majority of the left oppose them.
Defunding the police is vigilantism.
Which is why the vast majority of the left opposes it
Letting a BLM psychotic maniac loose to run over 40 white people because a prosecutor didn't feel like enforcing the law is vigilantism.
Which is why no one I know of on the left is in support of it.
Wondering when you’re going to come up with something relevant.
I'm actually not really concerned about the 37 percenters being angry anymore
And I’m not concerned with what the 34 percenters have to say
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How many people in the world are actually angry for a minute when a white skinned child rapist yelling NIGGA gets shot while attempting to violently harm someone? Why would you shed a single tear for a guy that does that?
Because the child rapist, woman beater, and thief were all posthumously given black status for supporting BLM.
The complete inability to understand the issue the left has here is just cartoonish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I said that your neighbor is threatened and you decide to defend their house. Assuming that that neighbor doesn't tell you to go away, can you defend him?
Yes.
Do you need someone's permission to defend them from being killed or having their house burnt down? Or do you have a right to be a good citizen that looks after others' safety?
You have the right.
Wondering when you’re going to ask a question relevant to the point I’m making.
I'm sure that they would rather have armed vigilantes playing cops than to let rioters have free reign to destroy everything in sight. I know I would feel much safer as a non-rioting citizen.
If that’s what they wanted they would have asked for that instead of telling people to stay home.
And being short on resources is what happened. I'm not saying that in the sense that they were "defunded". I just know that a small city's police force isn't equipped to deal with a large riot. Their resources were insufficient to deal with the issue ahead of them.
That’s why they called in the national guard
You don't need a city official to say that it is going to happen for it to be reality. What we clearly see differently is the moral obligations and rights of citizens to defend each other when lawlessness is plaguing an area.
Yep, this is our clear difference. I actually believe in things like democracy and law and order. Right wingers love talking about law and order but embrace vigilantism, as you are clearly demonstrating, which is the exact opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you say brain chemicals explain all experience that are known to science, therefore you claim that brain chemicals must explain NDEs. when we ask you what do NDEs indicate, you claim they indicate brain chemicals. it's blatantly circular, but you merely assert it isn't.
I never said brain chemicals must explain NDE’s, I literally said we don’t know what causes them. What we are disagreeing on is what is the simplest explanation, a concept you understand very well since you repeatedly make clear that this is your position on NDE’s. Just apply the same thing to my argument and now you understand what I’m saying.
More importantly, it’s not circular. We know brain chemicals exist because we observe them. We can and have taken people’s brains apart and studied its composition. We have hooked people’s brains up to machines and watched as different parts react to different stimuli. It is *from there* that we are able to deduce explanations for various phenomenon and build a model of how the brain works and its capabilities. There is nothing circular about this.
no one is making that claim. i said an afterlife is the simplest solution, because there's no science behind the idea of hallucations, just hunches
This is the classic example of an argument from ignorance. Science is a method of understanding reality. The only thing “there’s no science” supports is a lack of a conclusion. Your argument amounts to nothing more than “we don’t have a link between hallucinations and NDE’s, therefore they are a product of an afterlife”
you assert it's chemicals, but no known chemicals causes people to have such vivid afterlife stories. and it's not uncommon for many people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die. complete mystery as to how our body would cause it but you assert it's obvious that that's what's going on.
It’s not a complete mystery, we know the brain can produce visions. We’ve all experienced dreams, and we know the brain can hallucinate. You continue to argue that NDE’s are somehow different, but they’re not. They might (emphasize *might*) be more specific and more life like to those who experience them, but that’s a difference in degree not a difference in type. This is why it remains the simplest explanation.
you go even further and ignore a whole book of evidence about the afterlife and assert there's not a shred of evidence.
Let me start by addressing the semantics behind the word evidence. By definition, it means “that which can make a person believe”. This essentially makes it a tautology; if you believe X because of Y, then X is evidence. So if you believe aliens are visiting earth because the sky is blue, then the sky being blue qualifies as evidence for aliens.
When folks like myself say there is no evidence, that’s because we’re invoking standards as to what qualifies, and the most basic qualifier is validity. Therefore if something is not valid, it’s not evidence.
Your examples do not qualify because they are not valid, for many reasons. First of all because they are all anecdotal, which is to say they are a bunch of scenarios cherry picked because they fit the narrative.
Second, none of them were studied and verified under any type of controlled environment.
Third, because the proposed explanation for them has not yet been shown to itself exist.
Fourth, because none of them point to one explanation *over the alternative*. This is what the term necessity refers to, and it’s probably the most important concept to understand about evidence.
A thousand invalid examples does not amount to one valid example. So no, this does not qualify as evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I’m here primarily for my own amusement, and yours makes for an added bonus. I don’t know why you believe it is conspiracy theory to observe that the President has and requires handlers, though.
Depends on how you portray his “handlers”. Are you talking about advisors that he listens to and whose suggestions he may or may not decide to act on, or the more popular narrative which you implied - that he isn’t really in control, but rather is being controlled by his puppet masters?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Let's say that you live in a rural area where the police will take 45 minutes to arrive for a call.Someone threatens your elderly neighbor and says they will come back to burn their house down, and you decide that you want to help protect that neighbor until the police arrive. You call the cops and head over with your rifle.The guy comes back, and the police are still 15 minutes out. You are standing in the front lawn with said gun to help protect that neighbor. The guy threatening to burn the house down then pulls a gun on you. Can you shoot him? Is it not self-defense because you "put yourself in harms way" by offering to protect your neighbor since the cops couldn't?
This is an entirely different scenario.
First, I am being asked to help because I’m the only one who could. Rittenhouse was not asked by anyone, he went there to play the hero.
This wasn’t a “we’re on our way but we’re 45 minutes away” situation, the police were not absent because they were short resources, that’s nonsense. Dealing with civil unrest is not easy, and the last thing the authorities wanted was a bunch of armed vigilantes playing cops.
First, I think that he was justified in going to Kenosha because it is a nearby town in peril. The cops were not able to respond in all parts of the city because of how widespread the riots were.
Then clearly, this is where we see things differently. Please show me the press release where local officials were telling the public that they don’t have enough officers and needed everyone to bring their fire arms and head to Kenosha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A) that he was justified in going down there because the rioters were violent rapist antifa thugs bent on hurting Kyle's Familyand destroying HIS neighborhood where he worked and stayed with his family and the police are no where to be found...fixed for you.
Rittenhouse lived 20 miles away. And if he was there to protect his family (you mean his dad) then he would have been at his house, not in the middle of downtown Kenosha at a car dealership.
Setting your BS aside, this is all irrelevant to the point I just made.
It's called the 2nd Amendment. You should read it.
Nothing in my post had anything to do with constitutional rights. Let me know when you have a response that is relevant to what I just asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I guess that is another possibility. I suppose he can have a problem with well-established case law regarding self-defense. Good point
It’s not self defense in any reasonable sense when you willingly put yourself in harms way.
I notice that Rittenhouse defenders tend to simultaneously argue two things:
A) that he was justified in going down there because the rioters were violent rapist antifa thugs bent on hurting people and destroying the neighborhood and the police are no where to be found, and
B) that there was nothing wrong with his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 because he was just going down there to render aid and help put out fires and the AR15 was just on the off chance that he would need to defend himself, just like a seat belt.
Would you say you agree with both A and B, and if so, how do you square them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Then his handlers must have counseled him because he later added the “angry and concerned” bit in writing.
It always amuses me watching conspiracy theorists scramble to find the evidence for their conspiracies in everything.
Created: