Kyle Rittenhouse included in heroes list in school

Page 10 of 15 [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Nov 2020, 5:00 am

magz wrote:
"Unlawful" and "unethical" are two separate terms.


And there was nothing "unethical" about it either...Some may consider it as being "inappropriate", but there is no rule that states that a person cannot have their opinion on something, nor that (provided they are not connected with the case) they cannot let others know their opinion.

After all, a prior President help set a precedent for this sort of action with commentary on State level cases such as:
* Obama attacks police over arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates
* President Barack Obama weighed in on the killing of Trayvon Martin, calling it a tragedy, urging cooperation among law enforcement and declaring that "some soul searching" was needed throughout the country.

Given the lack of outcry over those (and more) from the side now complaining about the current President's similar actions, this leads to the legitimate question as to whether it is the "comment" that people have a problem with, or if it is simply used as a weapon to attack the person who made it...



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,238
Location: Right over your left shoulder

18 Nov 2020, 4:48 pm

Brictoria wrote:
magz wrote:
"Unlawful" and "unethical" are two separate terms.


And there was nothing "unethical" about it either...Some may consider it as being "inappropriate", but there is no rule that states that a person cannot have their opinion on something, nor that (provided they are not connected with the case) they cannot let others know their opinion.

After all, a prior President help set a precedent for this sort of action with commentary on State level cases such as:
* Obama attacks police over arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates
* President Barack Obama weighed in on the killing of Trayvon Martin, calling it a tragedy, urging cooperation among law enforcement and declaring that "some soul searching" was needed throughout the country.

Given the lack of outcry over those (and more) from the side now complaining about the current President's similar actions, this leads to the legitimate question as to whether it is the "comment" that people have a problem with, or if it is simply used as a weapon to attack the person who made it...


How exactly are the two equal? One is a sitting president speaking out in favour of a murderer who crossed state lines with an illegal firearm to engage in violence and the other is a sitting president condemning police engaging in racial profiling and condemning a racially motivated murder. :roll:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Nov 2020, 6:30 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
magz wrote:
"Unlawful" and "unethical" are two separate terms.


And there was nothing "unethical" about it either...Some may consider it as being "inappropriate", but there is no rule that states that a person cannot have their opinion on something, nor that (provided they are not connected with the case) they cannot let others know their opinion.

After all, a prior President help set a precedent for this sort of action with commentary on State level cases such as:
* Obama attacks police over arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates
* President Barack Obama weighed in on the killing of Trayvon Martin, calling it a tragedy, urging cooperation among law enforcement and declaring that "some soul searching" was needed throughout the country.

Given the lack of outcry over those (and more) from the side now complaining about the current President's similar actions, this leads to the legitimate question as to whether it is the "comment" that people have a problem with, or if it is simply used as a weapon to attack the person who made it...


How exactly are the two equal? One is a sitting president speaking out in favour of a murderer who crossed state lines with an illegal firearm to engage in violence and the other is a sitting president condemning police engaging in racial profiling and condemning a racially motivated murder. :roll:


Not sure which of the 2 examples I provided involved an underage person who "crossed state lines with an illegal firearm to engage in violence", given the Illinois and Wisconsin police have both confirmed the weapon was purchased, stored, and given to Mr Rittenhouse in Wisconsin.

And they are "equal" in that there are hypocrits who claim that the current President speaking out about a case is "unethical", whereas former Presidents who spoke out about open cases weren't.

The reason behind the case makes no difference: If there was no issue with prior Presidents speaking out about active cases potentially "interfering in the court case to sway a potential jury", then there should equally be no issue with the current President also speaking out about cases...Those who ignored the action under one President, yet see the same action under a different one as "unethical" show the issue isn't the action that was taken, rather it is merely a weapon they will use to attack the person who took the action.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

18 Nov 2020, 6:53 pm

Brictoria wrote:
The reason behind the case makes no difference: If there was no issue with prior Presidents speaking out about active cases potentially "interfering in the court case to sway a potential jury", then there should equally be no issue with the current President also speaking out about cases...Those who ignored the action under one President, yet see the same action under a different one as "unethical" show the issue isn't the action that was taken, rather it is merely a weapon they will use to attack the person who took the action.


You appear to be echoing the Rittenhouse legal team (who are ultra-republican and pro-QAnon) rather than coming across as an "objective impartial observer" as you are often at great pains to stress.

There is a difference, Obama was making a case for civil rights and police profiling, he was not interfering in the cases you are making claims about. You conveniently (and typically) ignored the links I posted where Trump refers to BLM as "antifa scum" and openly supports Rittenhouse and even tries to manipulate the outcome of the case. I am sure the families of Rittenhouse's victims would greatly appreciate Mr Trump trying to use their dead children as pawns to stay in power.

I think the NY times said it best that when it comes to your hero "trump" that there is no "bottom" since regularly scrapes the bottom of the barrel. And while I am on that subject of scraping the bottom of barrels your slurs directed at my comparing me to Pavolv's salivating dog and indirectly referring to me as a hypocrite did not go unnoticed.
May I also suggest you spell check to fix your posts - "response" and "hypocrite".



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Nov 2020, 7:41 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The reason behind the case makes no difference: If there was no issue with prior Presidents speaking out about active cases potentially "interfering in the court case to sway a potential jury", then there should equally be no issue with the current President also speaking out about cases...Those who ignored the action under one President, yet see the same action under a different one as "unethical" show the issue isn't the action that was taken, rather it is merely a weapon they will use to attack the person who took the action.


You appear to be echoing the Rittenhouse legal team (who are ultra-republican and pro-QAnon) rather than coming across as an "objective impartial observer" as you are often at great pains to stress.

There is a difference, Obama was making a case for civil rights and police profiling, he was not interfering in the cases you are making claims about. You conveniently (and typically) ignored the links I posted where Trump refers to BLM as "antifa scum" and openly supports Rittenhouse and even tries to manipulate the outcome of the case. I am sure the families of Rittenhouse's victims would greatly appreciate Mr Trump trying to use their dead children as pawns to stay in power.

I think the NY times said it best that when it comes to your hero "trump" that there is no "bottom" since regularly scrapes the bottom of the barrel. And while I am on that subject of scraping the bottom of barrels your slurs directed at my comparing me to Pavolv's salivating dog and indirectly referring to me as a hypocrite did not go unnoticed.
May I also suggest you spell check to fix your posts - "response" and "hypocrite".


The claim was that by commenting on the case he was acting in an unethical manner because he was potentially "interfering in the court case to sway a potential jury". The reason behind a case being prosecuted (or type of case) is immaterial: Under this "standard", prior President's commentary would have been equally "unethical" as they also would have equally been "interfering in the court case to sway a potential jury", which was what I was indicating.

The fact that different people taking the same action are treated differently demonstrates the action is merely a tool being used to attack one of the people who did so.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

18 Nov 2020, 8:41 pm

No, the election is how we democratically decide the president, it's not a dig at snowflake Republicans. Maybe you wouldn't be taking it personally if you weren't crassly shoving neo-con propaganda down our throats.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

18 Nov 2020, 8:42 pm

tl;dr

Downplaying hate crimes is a really weak stance for anyone.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Last edited by cberg on 18 Nov 2020, 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

18 Nov 2020, 8:58 pm

cyberdad wrote:
You appear to be echoing the Rittenhouse legal team (who are ultra-republican and pro-QAnon) rather than coming across as an "objective impartial observer" as you are often at great pains to stress.


He wouldn't end up stressing such things if others stuck to the topic instead of going after the person.

Ad Hominem (Latin for 'to the person') adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

18 Nov 2020, 9:01 pm

He wouldn't be stressing such things if he had any respect. We are not going after the person, only his violently inclined lies.

Welcome to the court of public opinion.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

18 Nov 2020, 9:08 pm

cberg wrote:
No, the election is how we democratically decide the president, it's not a dig at snowflake Republicans. Maybe you wouldn't be taking it personally if you weren't crassly shoving neo-con propaganda down our throats.


Looks more like simple logic to me. Logic that's being fought against with subjective emotionalism. The number of attacks to the person rather than the position they're maintaining, is a sorry sight to behold.

If this were a university debating class he would be getting good grades, whilst most of the rest who gang up on him would be failing the course.



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

18 Nov 2020, 9:15 pm

Brictoria is standing behind a minor with an illegal assault weapon killing people whom I'm pretty sure weren't out to kill anyone.

Good thing this is reality & not a partisan-predicated debate class.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

18 Nov 2020, 9:16 pm

You are clearly more concerned with high-school level politics if you are more concerned with the winner of the debate than the perpetrators of murder.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

18 Nov 2020, 9:22 pm

cberg wrote:
Brictoria is standing behind a minor with an illegal assault weapon killing people whom I'm pretty sure weren't out to kill anyone.


Hyperbolic gobbledigook.

But I'm not going to derail this thread any longer by pointing out what a comedy of errors and fallacies it is. It and others.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Nov 2020, 9:25 pm

cberg wrote:
He wouldn't be stressing such things if he had any respect. We are not going after the person, only his violently inclined lies.

Welcome to the court of public opinion.


If you feel so strongly that there were "lies", you should obviously have the evidence to demonstrate the intentional falsehood behind the statements as well as proof of what the "correct" facts are.

Please feel free to enlighten readers by supplying the evidence which substantiates your assertions...



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,545

18 Nov 2020, 9:26 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cberg wrote:
He wouldn't be stressing such things if he had any respect. We are not going after the person, only his violently inclined lies.

Welcome to the court of public opinion.


If you feel so strongly that there were "lies", you should obviously have the evidence to demonstrate the intentional falsehood behind the statements as well as proof of what the "correct" facts are.

Please feel free to enlighten readers by supplying the evidence which substantiates your assertions...


Someone wake me up when that happens.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

18 Nov 2020, 9:48 pm

Tempus Fugit wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
You appear to be echoing the Rittenhouse legal team (who are ultra-republican and pro-QAnon) rather than coming across as an "objective impartial observer" as you are often at great pains to stress.


He wouldn't end up stressing such things if others stuck to the topic instead of going after the person.

Ad Hominem (Latin for 'to the person') adjective (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


The topic was actually Rittenhouse being lauded as a hero in a school....