03 Dec 2021, 10:42 pm
Off Topic
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
I will never be a progressive partly because I will never embrace their mantra of:
"Morality is more important than the facts."
And partly because I will never respect: Sanctimony, self righteousness, and virtue signalling, which seems to be a necessity of the wokeism the left seems to heavily embrace.
Is this how you see me?
I consider myself to be pragmatic with a bit of a bleeding heart, yet I am a member of the "progressive" party.
You are too quick to generalize, IMHO.
While you try to be impartial, you don't succeed, imo.
Take one of your latest posts claiming *I* am not impartial, thinking I have taken a position of having a completely neutral political POV.
I can have both a political preference *and* have objective integrity, as do ethical judges in a court of law.
Ignoring my position in regard to gun control, my hatred of big business, my dislike of Trump, my dissatisfaction with the American health system, my not voting for any party, is a classic example of confirmation bias.
You only see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.
Sorry to inform you.
You say I generalise.
Fake news.
I am non-binary.
Do I have to explicitly say, in every sentence, that I don't generalise?
Must I, in every instance, incorporate explicit qualifiers?
Must I, really?
How about you consider my character in totality?
I don't want to rattle you, but you generalize right here. You insist on mixing me up with other posters and/or reading things I am not saying into my posts.
You confuse my taking a point and working with it.
Life is *not* all about you, mom.
I haven't come across someone as sensitive, in regard to this, as you.
I have taken note of your concern and have/will deleted any reference to your post, where appropriate, after you explained how you view my style.
I can change.
Can you?
How about you stop patronising me, for a start.
I'm the smartest skunk you will ever meet.
Don't be skunkist.
DW_a_mom wrote:
Right here you attribute to me things I have not said.
Specifically?
DW_a_mom wrote:
I know your more progressive positions and recognize them, but that isn't the question. You can say all you want that you don't generalize, but then I SEE you do it.
Specifically?
You do know what non-explicit/hidden qualifiers are, don't you?
Please stop making unfounded accusations and provide specific examples of where I generalise.
Simply saying something often or more loudly, doesn't make it so.
DW_a_mom wrote:
You are human; you aren't exempt from normal human behavior; that isn't a slur.
Rubbish.
I am a skunk.
A skunk who is more enlightened that the average bear.
DW_a_mom wrote:
What I want you to do is accurately recognize that sometimes your own reactions and patterns run contrary to your own stated goals and beliefs.
And what I want from you is for you to stop patronising me.
DW_a_mom wrote:
Quote:
Let me make this clear:
I will never embrace *extremist* left-wing ideology.
I will never embrace *extremist* right-wing ideology. (I am autistic. How could I???)
There is too much I dislike about the progressive side of politics because of its emphasis on "feelings" and collectivism, rather than individuality, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, reason and critical thinking.
There is too much emphasis, from conservative politics, on satisfying big business.
As you can see, I have more problems with left-wing ideology.
Something/k else you should know.
American conservatives and Australia conservatives are *not* the same animal.
Please keep this in mind.
I will never embrace *extremist* left-wing ideology.
I will never embrace *extremist* right-wing ideology. (I am autistic. How could I???)
There is too much I dislike about the progressive side of politics because of its emphasis on "feelings" and collectivism, rather than individuality, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, reason and critical thinking.
There is too much emphasis, from conservative politics, on satisfying big business.
As you can see, I have more problems with left-wing ideology.
Something/k else you should know.
American conservatives and Australia conservatives are *not* the same animal.
Please keep this in mind.
I am not sure you are aware of this, but the single most unifying factor among American "conservatives" at this point in time is not any political ideology, but a simple hatred and distrust of liberals. In this country, staking out a stance that one could never, ever align with the progressives is as strongly partisan as can exist at the moment, as weird as that may sound.
I don't mean to patronise you but this is self evident that America is a divided nation, and I have expressed this American phenomenon many times.
Ask Brictoria.
Ask others.
I have *never* seen this type of binary hyperpartisanship ever before.
I have had to listen to progressives calling *all* Republicans fascists/Nazis, for an extended period on this website.
I have had to explain why this was a dehumanising act, which was ironically used by the actual Nazis.
But, of course, you missed all that.
You septic tanks are wacky when it comes to politics, imo.
Electing "Anyone but *that* guy" would be hilarious, if it wasn't so serious.
So I know my crap.
What does a skunk have to do to get you to stop patronising him?
Fun fact:
You don't know *everything/k*.
Stop acting as though you are in a position to tell me what's what, especially in the area of human psychology.
Compared to me, you are a grasshoper, Grasshopper, when it comes to the human psyche.
You, having a religious bent, inhibits your full understanding about the human mindset, imo.
I used to be one of ewes.
And one of the main reasons I became an atheist was because I wanted to understand the complexity of "life, the universe, and everything/k".
Religious beliefs simply got in my way, so I dropped them.
BTW, Yes, I believe you have a religious bent.
I'd be surprised if you don't.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am not angry, btw.
I find you are mislead in your thinking, but regardless, you are "Interesting".
Two can play the patronising game, as you can see.
The difference here is, I know when I am doing it.
03 Dec 2021, 10:59 pm
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Carrying an AR 15 or other highly visible high velocity weapon I believe is more visually provocative than a smaller or concealed weapon.
That's very subjective, as the person choosing to openly carry a rifle may be doing so in order to deter rather than provoke violence, as in the case of the Korean shopkeepers defending their stores during the LA riots.
As I have said before, if I see a gun totin' hombre, I would walk in the other direction.
To me, a weapon actually *does* deter me.
Perhaps I am just being silly here and I should actually run towards the person with a weapon and threaten to kill him while doing it.
Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
If I understand the ballistics discussion correctly, most of these "big guns" are also much more lethal to their victims than a pistol would be. Isn't the logical conclusion, then, that I SHOULD be more scared of the high velocity weapon?
Only if you're planning on doing something that might get you shot, the relative lethality of the round is largely academic if you're not engaging in a conflict with the armed person. It's kinda like seeing a guy walking around with a baseball bat vs a guy with a katana; the katana might do more damage to you, but if you don't plan on picking a fight with either, it doesn't really matter.
DW_a_mom wrote:
Which brings me back to my point on self-defense: if a person is truly interested in self-defense, and not interested in making a visually provocative statement, why sling the big riffle?
Well, it this case it would have been illegal for Rittenhouse to carry a pistol, you have to be 21 for that, and also rifles are much easier to shoot, you have a third point of contact on the weapon in the form of the buttstock that allows for more control, the recoil comes straight back into your shoulder allowing for faster follow up rather than flipping like a pistol, you can deploy a sling for retention and optics for better accuracy, the capacity is higher if you're dealing with multiple assailants, plus you have more powerful rounds available. The only reason to carry a pistol rather than a rifle is convenience and concealment, otherwise the rifle is just a better weapon across the board, in the military context pistols are really just an afterthought.
Can you confirm that is was legal for Rittenhouse to carry that AR 15 rifle?
03 Dec 2021, 11:12 pm
cyberdad wrote:
it's interesting that the bulwark of Kyle supports meticulously avoid the whole "17 year old breaks a curfew and illegally possesses an loaded AR-15 and walks into warzone".
I am in the process of determing if Rittenhouse *was* acting unlawfully by carrying an AR 15.
cyberdad wrote:
The whole reason he bought the gun was because he "wanting to shoot looters". What does everyone expect? He wanted to sit down and have tea and crumpets with BLM?
The whole reason I am reading your post is because I think what you say is funny, and I love to laugh.
cyberdad wrote:
The protestors saw Kyle carrying a weapon (first provocation) and after the first killing everyone in the crowd legitimately saw Kyle as an active shooter (regardless of what the armchair psychologists claim).
As the resident psychiatrist, may I point out that other people didn't engage.
One guy in the video even held up his hands to show he was no threat to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse didn't shoot him, btw.
Facts are important, my fiend friend.
03 Dec 2021, 11:17 pm
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I actually saw the second incident and will try to find the first. However, what if Huber and Grosskreutz managed to overpower Rittenhouse and ended up killing his as result, would they have been hailed has 'heroes' by the prosecutor's office and system still, or would they have been charged with any homicide related charges instead?
I doubt either would have killed him, They would have disarmed him (and perhaps punched him a bit) and held him down till the police got there. But I would hazard a guess that the MAGAs championing Rittenhouse's armed vigilanteism would have turned the tables and painted Huber and Grosskreutz as terrorists not heroes.
Rosenbaum threatened to kill him, sparking the whole sorry saga.
I just thought I would add that little factual detail in the mix.
03 Dec 2021, 11:18 pm
Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
it's interesting that the bulwark of Kyle supports meticulously avoid the whole "17 year old breaks a curfew and illegally possesses an loaded AR-15 and walks into warzone". The whole reason he bought the gun was because he "wanting to shoot looters". What does everyone expect? He wanted to sit down and have tea and crumpets with BLM?
Ahh, so we're back to "is cyberdad dumb or dishonest?" again, as this was resolved both at trial, and in this thread multiple times already, the weapon being legal for him to possess, and the curfew charge being dismissed as inapplicable to the situation. Also, fleeing from aggression until being forced to shoot is hardly the behavior of someone who wanted to shoot anyone, but apparently that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp.
So, what is it, dumb or dishonest?
"Partisan"
03 Dec 2021, 11:23 pm
03 Dec 2021, 11:29 pm
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I actually saw the second incident and will try to find the first. However, what if Huber and Grosskreutz managed to overpower Rittenhouse and ended up killing his as result, would they have been hailed has 'heroes' by the prosecutor's office and system still, or would they have been charged with any homicide related charges instead?
I doubt either would have killed him, They would have disarmed him (and perhaps punched him a bit) and held him down till the police got there. But I would hazard a guess that the MAGAs championing Rittenhouse's armed vigilanteism would have turned the tables and painted Huber and Grosskreutz as terrorists not heroes.
But let's say for example that Grosskreutz felt him having a gun pointed at him felt he was in danger and he managed to shoot first before Rittenhouse, and killed Rittenhouse as a result. Would he still not be prosecuted and hailed as a hero by the prosecutor's office?
I think once they disarmed Rittenhouse then others in the vicinity would have rushed in to help pin him down and call the cops. Remember people in the vicinity were scared because Rittenhouse was armed and he had just killed Rosenbaum. The claim that Huber or Grosskreutz would have killed him is based on Kyle's panic which is a one-sided narrative deliberately designed to paint Kyle's victims as terrorists.
The entire jury believed Rittenhouse acted in self defense.
Perhaps you missed that fact.
And what is this "Terrorist" label you are using.
"I don't think it means what you think it does".
Has anyone used that term?
I always saw the violent property damaging rioters as violent property destroying rioters.
03 Dec 2021, 11:35 pm
03 Dec 2021, 11:54 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
The job of the police and prosecutors is to determine if there is a strong possibility of a crime, and if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.
I think there would have been pressure to at least bring it to trial, regardless of who did the shooting. If group A wasn't shouting for blood, group B would have been.
I also believe there would have been a case for self-defense by the second or third individuals, if they had ended up being the ones doing the shooting. The situation there that night really was that tangled.
The hell you say.
So, chasing down a kid with a weapon, who is running away, catching him, taking his weapon away from him and then shooting the kid dead with his own weapon, gets you a self-defense verdict?
"Only in America".
DW_a_mom wrote:
When push comes to shove, stay as far away as possible from civil unrest that has ceased to be peaceful.
Tell that to Rosebaum, too.
04 Dec 2021, 1:13 am
04 Dec 2021, 1:25 am
04 Dec 2021, 1:34 am
04 Dec 2021, 3:15 am
04 Dec 2021, 3:16 am
04 Dec 2021, 3:20 am
04 Dec 2021, 3:20 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Stolen Japanese Art found and returned to Japan |
19 Mar 2024, 4:19 pm |
| Man LIGHTS HIMSELF ON FIRE outside Trump Trial |
22 Apr 2024, 9:20 pm |
| NY Judge Declines To Delay Hush-Money Trial of Donald Trump |
13 Apr 2024, 4:44 am |
| MTG Says Trump Civil Trial Judge "Should Be Disrobed!" |
23 Feb 2024, 3:56 pm |
