Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Colonel Sanders]

The dipshit went looking for trouble and he found it. Unfortunately, people ended up dead because of it. He is a low IQ vigilante praised by the right rather portrayed than as the severely disturbed kid that he was/is. Any asshole who goes about waving a gun in any situation, let alone a during a heated protest is provocative. Where is the right's "personal responsibility" bullshit on this one? ... Bah, hypocrisy is their stock and trade.

 

[Derec]

The dipshit went looking for trouble and he found it. Unfortunately, people ended up dead because of it.

If you are talking about Rosenbaum, then yes. He was a dumb motherfucker who was the one seeking trouble throughout that night.
It went south for him when he attacked somebody armed. Fuck around, find out, as they say.

He is a low IQ vigilante praised by the right rather portrayed than as the severely disturbed kid that he was/is. Any asshole who goes about waving a gun in any situation, let alone a during a heated protest is provocative.

Ritt was armed, yes, but he wasn't waving his gun around. Nor is there any evidence he was "severely disturbed". Again, all this fits your boy Rosenbaum the Pedo. He had just been released from a mental institution, and could not stay with his fiancée Kariann Swart because he had beaten her up before. So he was a mentally disturbed, violent person.
And in fact, had Rosenbaum not attacked Ritt, none of this would have happened.

Where is the right's "personal responsibility" bullshit on this one? ... Bah, hypocrisy is their stock and trade.

What is your opinion of all the heavily armed #BLM/Antifa types who were common during 2020? In few cities, e.g. Atlanta, Seattle and Minneapolis, they took over and held territory with armed force. In Atlanta, one of them murdered an 8 year old girl. But no, a 17 year old who was attacked by a deranged felon and defended himself is the real problem here. While the actions of the rioters in Kenosha and elsewhere are just "peaceful protesting".

 

[laughing dog]

What is your opinion of all the heavily armed #BLM/Antifa types who were common during 2020? In few cities, e.g. Atlanta, Seattle and Minneapolis, they took over and held territory with armed force. In Atlanta, one of them murdered an 8 year old girl.

#BLM held territory with armed force in Minneapolis? Are you refering to the riot? If so, that seems an intellectually dishonest characterization.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

You're quite literally excusing the assault of a minor on the grounds that the minor brought it on himself by having shown poor judgement. Your logic is the same logic used to excuse assaults of women on the grounds that the woman brought it on themselves by having shown poor judgement.

It's called a false equivalence, which your kind <Removed by Moderator> are quite fond of. There's nothing threatening about clothing. There is something threatening about carrying an assault rifle. There, just destroyed your false equivalence with 2 seconds of basic critical thought <Removed by Moderator>.

It doesn't even reach the level of false equivalence. That usually involves two situations that have differing significance, outcome, or magnitude being falsely portrayed as similar to one another.

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming. Her statement is ridiculous, as well as minimizes sexual assault as an argumentative tool for cheap points. Pathetic!

 

[Bomb#20]

My comments are bad but it's totally OK to insinuate someone is OK with sexual assault of minors. That is just part of civil discussion.

That's not what happened here though. Nobody insinuated anyone here is OK with sexual assault of minors. One member insinuated another member was okay with a non-sexual assault of a minor. The sexual assault was in a hypothetical example for the sake of argument. The implication of the argument wasn't "You'd be okay with the sexual example too."; it was "You know how you wouldn't be okay with the sexual example? Well, you ought to think about the non-sexual case the same way.".

As to whether that sort of argument is more OK in civil discussion than your comments, I won't venture an opinion since I didn't see your comments.

 

[Bomb#20]

Emily Lake's post was equating a person justifying raping a third party due to what she is wearing with a person finding an openly armed third person alarming. Her statement is ridiculous, ...

Your post is equating physically attacking an openly armed third person with finding the person alarming. Your statement is ridiculous.