Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Kyle Rittenhouse says he will sue Whoopi Goldberg

Page 3 of 10 [ 149 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 5:49 pm

League_Girl wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?


Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.


If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.



Good point, the women can start suing anyone who calls them a murderer for having an abortion.


I think this is perfectly reasonable.

It should be illegal to call a woman a murderer for having an abortion. I fully agree.


Doesn't this contradict your opinion on freedom of speech, people can say things you don't like but they are free to say it without getting bullied?


It does not contradict that opinion, no.

People should be free to say anything - but that does not mean there might not be consequences, i.e, retaliatory legal action.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 5:51 pm

I am not advocating for banning people from saying derogatory terms alotgether, but that such things should have legal consequences, i.e, if there is a campaign to smear a person and their reputation, for years on end, a campaign that is wholly false & untrue and based on lies - the culprits should be able to be brought to justice in some way.

There shouldn't be barriers. The people cancelling someone based on BS should not have any power when their lies have revealed themselves.



Last edited by blitzkrieg on 22 Feb 2022, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 5:53 pm

Pepe wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
Well, I may be wrong, but only time will tell. I would put my money on Rittenhouse winning any defamation court case (in the real world) if I had a stake in or anything to gain from, Rittenhouse winning, which I do not.


I will be buying Rittenhouse shares as soon as the stock market opens today. :mrgreen:


Haha.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Feb 2022, 5:54 pm

League_Girl wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?


Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.


If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.



Good point, the women can start suing anyone who calls them a murderer for having an abortion.


I think this is perfectly reasonable.

It should be illegal to call a woman a murderer for having an abortion. I fully agree.


Doesn't this contradict your opinion on freedom of speech, people can say things you don't like but they are free to say it without getting bullied?


Anyone is free to initiate a libel or slander suit against themselves.
It's a free country. 8)



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 5:55 pm

Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Does Rittenhouse think he can silence everyone who calls a murderer a murderer?


Killing someone in self-defense is technically not murder. At least within the American justice system.


If you can call someone who's terminated a pregnancy a murderer you can call Rittenhouse a murderer.



Good point, the women can start suing anyone who calls them a murderer for having an abortion.


I think this is perfectly reasonable.

It should be illegal to call a woman a murderer for having an abortion. I fully agree.


Doesn't this contradict your opinion on freedom of speech, people can say things you don't like but they are free to say it without getting bullied?


Anyone is free to initiate a libel or slander suit against themselves.
It's a free country. 8)


The United Kingdom is not a free country. You have to have money to initiate such legal action & legal aid has been taken away from the working class over here in recent years.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,115
Location: Long Island, New York

22 Feb 2022, 6:05 pm

Politics and guilt or innocence aside a classic case of publicity going to someone's head.

Rittenhouse's acquittal was correct for reasons gone over before.

If Rittenhouse wins any of these libel cases it would be a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse has not been harmed, this was the best thing to ever happen to him.

He should be appreciative his stupidity did not get him seriously injured or killed. He should consider himself lucky in this woke climate he was not convicted.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Feb 2022, 6:09 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Politics and guilt or innocence aside a classic case of publicity going to someone's head.

Rittenhouse's acquittal was correct for reasons gone over before.

If Rittenhouse wins any of these libel cases it would be a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse has not been harmed, this was the best thing to ever happen to him.

He should be appreciative his stupidity did not get him seriously injured or killed. He should consider himself lucky in this woke climate he was not convicted.


Quote:
Reverend Al Sharpton Urged Supporters To Stop Harassing Kyle Rittenhouse For Killing Only White Dudes
:mrgreen:
https://extranewsfeed.com/reverend-al-s ... 42113e8e3e



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 7:23 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Politics and guilt or innocence aside a classic case of publicity going to someone's head.

Rittenhouse's acquittal was correct for reasons gone over before.

If Rittenhouse wins any of these libel cases it would be a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse has not been harmed, this was the best thing to ever happen to him.

He should be appreciative his stupidity did not get him seriously injured or killed. He should consider himself lucky in this woke climate he was not convicted.


I agree it will not necessarily be a morally good thing to win such a defamation case. However, if he is willing to lower himself to the woke climate and the wokeologists with their parasitic mindset of taking money they shouldn't be taking - then that is on him.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

22 Feb 2022, 8:19 pm

Such lawsuits are handled in civil courts, where even an acquitted mass-murderer can be found culpable of his crimes. A murdering white racist going after a wealthy black celebrity in civil court will likely give the plaintiff only “street cred”, but not the monetary wealth he may be seeking.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 8:52 pm

Fnord wrote:
Such lawsuits are handled in civil courts, where even an acquitted mass-murderer can be found culpable of his crimes. A murdering white racist going after a wealthy black celebrity in civil court will likely give the plaintiff only “street cred”, but not the monetary wealth he may be seeking.


Hmm, I think you are judging Rittenhouse a bit too harshly here, but, you are correct, there is certainly the possibility that he could win nothing but street cred' & waste only his time by going to court with this.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Feb 2022, 9:02 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Politics and guilt or innocence aside a classic case of publicity going to someone's head.

Rittenhouse's acquittal was correct for reasons gone over before.

If Rittenhouse wins any of these libel cases it would be a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse has not been harmed, this was the best thing to ever happen to him.

He should be appreciative his stupidity did not get him seriously injured or killed. He should consider himself lucky in this woke climate he was not convicted.


I agree it will not necessarily be a morally good thing to win such a defamation case. However, if he is willing to lower himself to the woke climate and the wokeologists with their parasitic mindset of taking money they shouldn't be taking - then that is on him.


Time will tell. 8)



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

22 Feb 2022, 9:07 pm

Pepe wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Politics and guilt or innocence aside a classic case of publicity going to someone's head.

Rittenhouse's acquittal was correct for reasons gone over before.

If Rittenhouse wins any of these libel cases it would be a miscarriage of justice. Rittenhouse has not been harmed, this was the best thing to ever happen to him.

He should be appreciative his stupidity did not get him seriously injured or killed. He should consider himself lucky in this woke climate he was not convicted.


I agree it will not necessarily be a morally good thing to win such a defamation case. However, if he is willing to lower himself to the woke climate and the wokeologists with their parasitic mindset of taking money they shouldn't be taking - then that is on him.


Time will tell. 8)


As it always does in these matters.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

24 Feb 2022, 2:37 am

I guess I just don't understand why some people are against the idea of being able to shootback in self defense to prevent from possibly being killed. What's wrong with defending one's self, or why are there so many people who are pro-pacifism, and just let the attackers, attack you, etc? What's with the pro pacifism, turn the other cheek attitude? Or in a more extreme like this, it's more like a 'turn the other testicle' attitude.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,512

24 Feb 2022, 7:13 am

ironpony wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why some people are against the idea of being able to shootback in self defense to prevent from possibly being killed. What's wrong with defending one's self, or why are there so many people who are pro-pacifism, and just let the attackers, attack you, etc? What's with the pro pacifism, turn the other cheek attitude? Or in a more extreme like this, it's more like a 'turn the other testicle' attitude.


I think a lot of people try to protect themselves with group-think and gangs, but in reality, in the event they would be alone and defenseless, they would want at the very least a pistol to defend themselves with, they would need that gun. To save their sorry lives!



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

24 Feb 2022, 12:09 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
ironpony wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why some people are against the idea of being able to shootback in self defense to prevent from possibly being killed. What's wrong with defending one's self, or why are there so many people who are pro-pacifism, and just let the attackers, attack you, etc? What's with the pro pacifism, turn the other cheek attitude? Or in a more extreme like this, it's more like a 'turn the other testicle' attitude.


I think a lot of people try to protect themselves with group-think and gangs, but in reality, in the event they would be alone and defenseless, they would want at the very least a pistol to defend themselves with, they would need that gun. To save their sorry lives!



People who have a dissenting opinion from the majority wouldn't even express it to begin with and they would keep their thoughts to themselves unless they are in a group where lot of people have the same opinion as them, (human nature) not lie about their beliefs. I'm talking about online of course. In real life it's harder to do.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 40
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

24 Feb 2022, 2:40 pm

Oh okay I see.. But why have the majority it seems, have taken up a pro-pacifism ideology in the first place?