4mo ago

All windows shatter

Show Context

304 comments

why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in "self defense" is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their "life threatened for no reason" and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse's situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
- Maybe don't attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies?
  Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him.
  
  You're not being very clear here.
  Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.
  Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?
  
  Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.
  
  This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say "Strawman" and act like you've achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
  
  That's only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don't believe The Left took control of the guy's hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
  If you attack someone and get shot over it, I'm not crying for you.
  
  Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
  So, 2 main responses to that:
  Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
  Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn't address my question of "Why was he there in the first place?"
  See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked "Why was he there?" "Someone attacked him while he was there" does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
  (See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn't just say "Red herring" and act like I won something.)
  
  I don't know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a "crazy guy walking around with a gun" prior to the shooting, but I'd never heard that before.
  To protest, obviously. Same as the other side.
  Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to "engineer" that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He's just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him.
  (See? You're finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.)
  
  I don't know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn't even his.)
  He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives).
  
  You put far too much faith in someone's words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were "just there to visit" therefore it wasn't an insurrection?
  Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he'd be in prison like he deserved.
  
  "he didn't mean it" is not a legal or moral defense.
  If someone's officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn't mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from "You say X when it was actually Y because..." than in saying "You claim X, so let's assume X is true...."
  I'm not going to argue with you about his "true" reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let's meet in the middle at Rittenhouse's stated reason. His official reason was "to defend property" which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches.
  As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine.

304 comments