IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th September 2022, 01:06 PM   #81
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,398
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If she didn't wear that dress, she wouldn't have been raped.

Seriously?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 01:14 PM   #82
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Seriously?
People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked because he did something he was legally permitted to do. If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 01:28 PM   #83
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,794
Dunno why you think that way

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked because he did something he was legally permitted to do. If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.
Wee Karl Witlesshaus barged into a fight, making himself a combatant -- an armed combatant at that. He was thereby a public menace, and proved it. Until he got arrested, he enjoyed himself, I think.

But I don't much concern myself with a junior brownshirt who got off. He'll be in some sort of new trouble this year or next.

I'm concerned with armed grownup daffballs surging around looking for safe ways to commit outrages. I've always been worried by the likes of that. Not you?
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 01:33 PM   #84
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If she didn't wear that dress, she wouldn't have been raped.
I see you still can't understand why your analogy is wrong even though it's been clearly explained. Let's try this again...

1. Does a rapist commit a rape regardless of what the victim is wearing? Yes. Otherwise they would not rape women lying in their own beds at night, women out jogging, women in comas, old women, etc.

2. Would Rittenhouse have needed to 'protect himself' by killing two people if he had not taken a rifle to the protest in the first place? No. The reason Rittenhouse was being chased was because:

Quote:
Around 11:45 p.m. Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse into a used-car lot as Rittenhouse yells "Friendly, friendly, friendly." Rosenbaum throws a plastic bag containing toiletries at Rittenhouse.

* Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum grabbed his gun. A journalist for the Daily Caller, a conservative website, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for the rifle. Rittenhouse fires his gun at Rosenbaum, hitting him four times and killing him.
If Rittenhouse did not have that rifle, none of the above would have happened and he would not have killed two people and shot the arm off a third. Rittenhouse, at age 17, was not even legally allowed to carry that rifle:

Quote:
Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
If you cannot understand that, then you are either being willfully blind or obtuse.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because there's no reason to think Rittenhouse went there with the express intent of getting attacked. Duh.
Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together could have anticipated that going to that protest with a rifle could well end in violence:

In a video taken by Richard McGinniss, a journalist with the Daily Caller, Mr. Rittenhouse is seen with a rifle and a medic kit, saying he is out to protect local businesses. At that point, Kenosha had experienced violent unrest for two nights that left businesses burned, looted and damaged in response to a video that showed police shooting Mr. Blake in the back seven times.

“People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people,” Mr. Rittenhouse said in the video. “If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That is why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, but I also have my med kit.”


It was not Rittenhouse's "job" to protect anyone or anything; that was the job of the police. He clearly anticipated having to use that rifle.


Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
She went to that bar to find someone to have sex with.
Do you also need to have explained to you the difference between consensual sex and rape?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is still being asserted without evidence.
Only by you. Rittenhouse may not have been "looking" for a violent confrontation, but he was fully expecting one which is why he took his rifle in the first place.

I suggest you stop digging that hole. It's only getting worse the more you try to defend it.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 01:40 PM   #85
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
People said that Rittenhouse deserved to be attacked
I don't see anyone here saying that.


Quote:
because he did something he was legally permitted to do.
Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.

Quote:
If you think that's outrageous, well, yes, it is.

If you don't, then you're part of the problem.
I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 02:40 PM   #86
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
https://science.time.com/2013/07/04/...on-since-1776/

Wood fuel usage peaked in the late 1800's.

If you don't want to believe we cleared a lot of land for fuel, fine. But there was never any possibility that we could have industrialized without the use of fossil fuels. Our modern world is built on fossil fuels. Even under the most optimistic projections of what might be possible in the future, we could never have gotten to that point without going through a period of intense fossil fuel usage.
And this is what makes Man among the most destructive of infestations ever to inhabit Earth. How many species are we responsible for making extinct? Thousands, easily. Millions? And in such an incredibly short span of time.

Our obscene rapaciousness and quest for growth and dominance makes us as a kind of viral pandemic. Are there sufficient carbon reserves left to burn such that perhaps this unchecked infestation will stop itself through ecosystem ruination? To be sure, at some point the finite resources of all kinds will impose a check. But that high tide of homo sapiens will have been to the detriment of so many creatures.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 02:55 PM   #87
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 10,528
There's no point in bothering to counter arguments that are so entirely absurd that you already know the person presenting them can't possibly really believe them.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 03:05 PM   #88
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
There's no point in bothering to counter arguments that are so entirely absurd that you already know the person presenting them can't possibly really believe them.
The problem is that many of them do believe them. The others are just trolls.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 04:22 PM   #89
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
And this is what makes Man among the most destructive of infestations ever to inhabit Earth.
I’m not interested in your anti human fetish. If you want to join VHEMT, be my guest. But you first.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 04:30 PM   #90
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.
You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.

Quote:
I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.
You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 04:32 PM   #91
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Wee Karl Witlesshaus barged into a fight, making himself a combatant
You’re grasping at straws to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by the fact.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 06:11 PM   #92
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I’m not interested in your anti human fetish. If you want to join VHEMT, be my guest. But you first.
(No idea what VHEMT is...)

It's healthy to take an objective view of the larger picture. To blinker one's self in a provincial mindset is what leads, for instance, to societal stultification, cultish behavior and, ultimately, avoidable harm.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 06:22 PM   #93
Lurch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,247
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.



You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.
"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun, due to being underage. This whole fiasco began with an illegal act, before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.

Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 06:46 PM   #94
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun
He was not the legal owner. He did not need to be.

Quote:
This whole fiasco began with an illegal act
The court said otherwise.

Quote:
before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.
The gun never crossed state lines. State lines had absolutely no legal relevance to any of the events that occurred.

Quote:
Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?
No, we will not. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand the laws of self defense. Likewise, if you don't know why Rittenhouse was rightly acquitted, then you don't understand the laws of self defense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 06:52 PM   #95
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
(No idea what VHEMT is...)
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Since we're such a blight on the earth, we should apparently go extinct.

Quote:
It's healthy to take an objective view of the larger picture. To blinker one's self in a provincial mindset is what leads, for instance, to societal stultification, cultish behavior and, ultimately, avoidable harm.
Calling humankind an "infestation" is not an objective view. And "provincial mindset" is a pretty good description of the idea that our modern society would have been possible absent the extensive use of fossil fuels. Again, even if you think we can move away from them in the future, we could not have in the past, not without remaining pre-industrial (which has its own costs I doubt most people would be willing to pay).
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 09:45 PM   #96
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You’re grasping at straws to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by the fact.
You’re grasping at "facts" to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by reality.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 11:49 PM   #97
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Actually, no. No one is saying he didn't have the right to defend himself. We're saying that none of it would have happened if he hadn't brought a rifle in the first place. A rifle that was illegal for him to have and carry in the first place as he was underage. Which is why he had someone else buy it for him. He knew that.
You are wrong about the legality of his actions, and the matter has already been settled in court.
I've researched further and found out why the charge for illegally possessing a gun was dropped: a technicality in WI law aimed at allowing 16-17 years to have rifles to hunt:

Quote:
Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafsi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
Quote:
Then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican, signed a law that year that expanded the prohibition to include short-barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars and nunchakus. Four years later, Thompson signed another law extending the prohibition to any firearm. But that law also allowed minors to possess long guns for hunting as long as the barrels were at least a foot long.
So if it was legal for a 17 year old to own an assault style rifle...which is beyond ludicrous in itself...why did he have someone else buy it for him in WI? Because he lived in IL where it was illegal for him to own a firearm and he knew it:

Quote:
However, Illinois also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to any person who does not hold a FOID card. To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition.
Rittenhouse did not have a FOID card.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think it's outrageous that you're claiming what he did is in any way comparable to what a woman wears initiating her rape.
You don’t get it. The comparison is YOU, not Rittenhouse. YOU are like someone who blames a woman for being raped. You blame Kyle for doing what he was legally allowed to do, because other people responded badly. That’s not a reasonable standard.
Sigh. I didn't do that. YOU made that false analogy and can't seem to get it through your head why it's so damn wrong.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself.
She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.
1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.

You made the crappy analogy, not me.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2022, 11:53 PM   #98
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
"Legally allowed to do."

I thought he was not in legal ownership of his gun, due to being underage. This whole fiasco began with an illegal act, before Kid Kyle stepped out of his house to cross State lines with an illegally possessed weapon.

Will we soon see a defendant in the dock for his act of 'self defense' after blowing someone up with a pipe bomb, or a grenade, and being found not guilty?
See my post above. KR did not cross state lines with the gun. He couldn't legally buy or own one in IL so he had a friend in WI buy it there and he picked it up there. He knew what he was doing. If he'd taken it into IL, he could have been charged with illegal possession.

The idea of a kid under 18 being allowed to own an assault style rifle is so stupid that anyone who isn't an idiot should be able to see it. And yet....
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 07:26 AM   #99
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.
Correct: he doesn't have to rape her. And Rosenbaum didn't have to attack Rittenhouse. They choose to, and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle (both legal) doesn't absolve a rapist or Rosenbaum of responsibility for their choices, neither of which is justified.

See how it works? No, you probably don't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 07:28 AM   #100
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You’re grasping at "facts" to try to reach a conclusion that was never supported by reality.
“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” - Homer Simpson, and evidently Norman Alexander too
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 12:16 PM   #101
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
1. Rittenhouse. a cop wannabe, brought a damn AR15 style rifle to an already heated and violent protest when he knew he might have to use it to protect himself and which, indeed, initiated a series of events culminating in him having to protect himself with that gun. No gun: no killing two people.

2. Wearing a sexy dress does NOT start a sequence of events which culminates in a man having to rape her.
Correct: he doesn't have to rape her. And Rosenbaum didn't have to attack Rittenhouse. They choose to, and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle (both legal) doesn't absolve a rapist or Rosenbaum of responsibility for their choices, neither of which is justified.

See how it works? No, you probably don't.
Police wannabe Rittenhouse didn't have to bring a rifle that he knew he couldn't legally own in his own state to the protests in the first place for Rosenbaum to grab. Rittenhouse started the sequence of events that led to 2 deaths. See how that works? Obviously, you don't. He had no business being there with a gun. Period.
Quote:
"... and the fact that those events might not have happened but for wearing a dress or carrying a rifle..."
Correction: the dress a woman wore had NO impact on whether the rapist was going to rape her or not. The dress was not the reason she was raped.

Rittenhouse bringing the rifle in the first place most certainly was the reason two people died that night. Or do you think Rosenbaum would have threatened Rittenhouse if he didn't have this walking around like some badass:




Rittenhouse was definitely defending himself by the time he shot those men, but your refusal to admit that Rittenhouse was responsible for being in that position in the first place is noted. Whatever happened to the alleged conservative principle of "personal responsibility"?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 12:52 PM   #102
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Police wannabe Rittenhouse didn't have to bring a rifle
She didn't have to wear a short dress.

You keep making excuses for why Rossenbaum attacked Rittenhouse, but the fact is that Rossenbaum's attack wasn't justified, and Rittenhouse's self defense was.

Quote:
Rittenhouse started the sequence of events that led to 2 deaths.
And she started the sequence of events that led to her rape.

Except that's not the basis on which any decent person assigns blame.

Quote:
He had no business being there with a gun. Period.
He was legally entitled to be there with a gun. Period.

Quote:
Correction: the dress a woman wore had NO impact on whether the rapist was going to rape her or not.
Are you suggesting that if it were, her rape would be justified? That's monstrous.

Quote:
Rittenhouse bringing the rifle in the first place most certainly was the reason two people died that night. Or do you think Rosenbaum would have threatened Rittenhouse if he didn't have this walking around like some badass:
Rosenbaum was a violent lunatic. So... yeah, quite possibly. He was a convicted sexual abuser of children, so attacking an unarmed minor wouldn't have been beneath him. Obviously we can never know for sure, but your certainty that he wouldn't isn't remotely justified.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:19 PM   #103
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,865
Thank god brandishing a weapon isn't illegal or a crime/ threat.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:23 PM   #104
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Thank god brandishing a weapon isn't illegal or a crime/ threat.
Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:25 PM   #105
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,865
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.
Unless of course he was black then everyone knows the second amendment doesn't apply at all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:31 PM   #106
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” - Homer Simpson, and evidently Norman Alexander too
OK, Homer. Where's your facts that Rittenhouse really needed to be there at all, and that he needed to be there with a gun that he contrived to be in possession of by tweaking interstate gun-control laws. Even before the poor little innocent lamb had a deadly duffel bag (or whatever) thrown towards him.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:35 PM   #107
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Rittenhouse didn't brandish a weapon. Prosecutors claimed he did, but their evidence was laughable, and it was a desperate claim to try to rescue a failing case.
Dude, there's a photo of him in this very thread doing exactly that on the day in question. Just a few posts ago. Or is this trolling??
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:44 PM   #108
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Dude, there's a photo of him in this very thread doing exactly that on the day in question. Just a few posts ago. Or is this trolling??
https://www.greghillassociates.com/w...n-someone.html
Brief Synopsis: Brandishing a weapon is when someone shows another person a weapon, i.e. a gun or a knife, in an angry or theatening manner with the intent that the other person experience fear or anxiety.
That's a photo of him carrying a weapon, not brandishing it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:46 PM   #109
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,366
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
https://www.greghillassociates.com/w...n-someone.html
Brief Synopsis: Brandishing a weapon is when someone shows another person a weapon, i.e. a gun or a knife, in an angry or theatening manner with the intent that the other person experience fear or anxiety.
That's a photo of him carrying a weapon, not brandishing it.
Wow. This thread just went looney.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:48 PM   #110
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
OK, Homer. Where's your facts that Rittenhouse really needed to be there at all
I never claimed that he needed to be there. Nothing I said depends on him needing to be there.

I said he had a right to be there. Nobody, including you, has actually contested that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:50 PM   #111
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Wow. This thread just went looney.
If Rittenhouse was guilty of brandishing, do you think prosecutors would really have just let that slide? That doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't match their pattern of behavior. So why didn't they go after him for brandishing?

Maybe because he didn't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 01:55 PM   #112
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,985
Kyle. The gift that keeps on giving.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 03:59 PM   #113
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
I give up. There's no use in continuing to explain to Zig how and why his analogy is wrong when he either doesn't want to see it or is just incapable of grasping it. Not one person has agreed with Ziggurat's analogy but five...six including me... do disagree with it. When you hit a brick wall, it's just time to stop banging your head against it cuz the only thing you're going to get is a headache and the brick wall isn't going to change.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 09:52 PM   #114
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,228
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I give up. There's no use in continuing to explain to Zig how and why his analogy is wrong when he either doesn't want to see it or is just incapable of grasping it. Not one person has agreed with Ziggurat's analogy but five...six including me... do disagree with it. When you hit a brick wall, it's just time to stop banging your head against it cuz the only thing you're going to get is a headache and the brick wall isn't going to change.
You want to blame someone who acted legally because other people committed crimes against them. The analogy works perfectly, not because Kyle is like a rape victim, but because you are like a rape victim blamer.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2022, 11:08 PM   #115
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 26,713
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You want to blame someone who acted legally because other people committed crimes against them. The analogy works perfectly, not because Kyle is like a rape victim, but because you are like a rape victim blamer.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.