I think you're getting piled on for calling @oates scum.I'm getting piled on for calling out people who are giving 'context' and excuses for paedophiles.
I think you're getting piled on for calling @oates scum.I'm getting piled on for calling out people who are giving 'context' and excuses for paedophiles.
I believe anyone who defends or excuses predatory paedophiles is just that.I think you're getting piled on for calling @oates scum.
But you added in “excuses”. Nobody is doing that. Even oats himself said it doesn’t excuse it. I’m sure we can all agree anyone who does what that guy did is the lowest of scum. Nobody is trying to or wants to excuse it.Your reply was that he was giving "merely adding context"...for what might that be? I literally quoted the word you used
When faced with a rap sheet of the dead paedophile's crimes your response was to say that "he'd been abused as a child". If you had said rightly that none of that was relevant to the case then you'd have been right to say that.I don't mind being called Scum by people who don't have the ability to understand what a discussion is about. The victim being a child abuser has nothing to do with why he was killed, and yet it was brought up by another poster so it was therefore up for comment.
Attempting to understand that is just beyond the effort some people want to put in. They learn nothing, and as people they don't grow. I suspect they have their reasons. Scum is a pretty innocuous term when you understand that they may be broken themselves in some way.
When I first replied to @Suedesi it was in response to him calling the victim a nut job. I don't like the terminology and commented that he was mentally ill, had got out of hospital that day after attempting suicide, I see calling someone a nut job as attempting to de-humanise a person, it's uncalled for. We went on to the point that I responded that he'd been abused as a child when that was not included in Suedesi's 'rap sheet'.When faced with a rap sheet of the dead paedophile's crimes your response was to say that "he'd been abused as a child". If you had said rightly that none of that was relevant to the case then you'd have been right to say that.
Good post. Compassion's the way to go.When I first replied to @Suedesi it was in response to him calling the victim a nut job. I don't like the terminology and commented that he was mentally ill, had got out of hospital that day after attempting suicide, I see calling someone a nut job as attempting to de-humanise a person, it's uncalled for. We went on to the point that I responded that he'd been abused as a child when that was not included in Suedesi's 'rap sheet'.
Why would I need to explain every time child sex offenders are discussed that I cannot abide them, that in my opinion no child sex offender should get the opportunity to offend again? I've certainly said it before, in fact it was my job and is now my business to work with abused children. And yet I will not de-humanise any sex offender or for that matter any abuser of which there are several types. When I work with kids who have been abused for much of my working life they are the victims, if I fail them and they abuse someone they cross a line, one side where they deserve compassion to another whereupon they are reviled by society and rightly so but my way is to believe in compassion. To me who cannot ever know what or who failed them, parent, counsellor, social worker, themselves, myself, they are still human beings. I have to accept this or I could not also work with the parent who might be the abuser. The details are probably boring you but as I've said, I cannot abide them or their crime but because they were once innocent I still know they are human. I have to show and believe in compassion or I would fail before I ever started. Some cannot be fixed, I cannot tell which ones when I meet them.
It's despicable to bring their history as whatever into the argument here in any case because it has nothing to do with why he was killed. It is simply a desire to de-humanise. Maybe an attempt to say that they deserved killing by a young man who knew nothing about him.
Then you know nothing about childhood traumaI consider anyone defending or giving excuses for child rapists as scum.
My man.When I first replied to @Suedesi it was in response to him calling the victim a nut job. I don't like the terminology and commented that he was mentally ill, had got out of hospital that day after attempting suicide, I see calling someone a nut job as attempting to de-humanise a person, it's uncalled for. We went on to the point that I responded that he'd been abused as a child when that was not included in Suedesi's 'rap sheet'.
Why would I need to explain every time child sex offenders are discussed that I cannot abide them, that in my opinion no child sex offender should get the opportunity to offend again? I've certainly said it before, in fact it was my job and is now my business to work with abused children. And yet I will not de-humanise any sex offender or for that matter any abuser of which there are several types. When I work with kids who have been abused for much of my working life they are the victims, if I fail them and they abuse someone they cross a line, one side where they deserve compassion to another whereupon they are reviled by society and rightly so but my way is to believe in compassion. To me who cannot ever know what or who failed them, parent, counsellor, social worker, themselves, myself, they are still human beings. I have to accept this or I could not also work with the parent who might be the abuser. The details are probably boring you but as I've said, I cannot abide them or their crime but because they were once innocent I still know they are human. I have to show and believe in compassion or I would fail before I ever started. Some cannot be fixed, I cannot tell which ones when I meet them.
It's despicable to bring their history as whatever into the argument here in any case because it has nothing to do with why he was killed. It is simply a desire to de-humanise. Maybe an attempt to say that they deserved killing by a young man who knew nothing about him.
what?!fecking hell, do you want a white supremacy badge?!
You know nothing about CSA.I consider anyone defending or giving excuses for child rapists as scum.
You're comparing people to naziswhat?!
White privilege is just a construct that the media applies selectively to fit a narrative.
I don't see how the owner of the car store that was burned down or the owner of furniture store that was burned down was in anyway responsible for the police shooting of Jacob Blake. It's not the ordinary citizens here who have broken their social contract. And jacob blakes own mother urgred everyone to not go out and create trouble. His shooting was a complete different case than George Floyd.The black lives matter movement is about the disregard of the social contract when applied to people of colour. If they're breaking the social contract, why shouldn't the people on the other side of the argument.
Fighting fire with fire! Badum ts.So was playing fireman Sam too, while having a AR15 hanging off his shoulder.
Had no business taking out fires and going into those areas, it's like throwing a lit match into a box of fireworks.
You're a very underrated poster, harms.Fighting fire with fire! Badum ts.
This is a strange hill to die on mate. No one is defending what he did but this is objective fact that most abusers were abused themselves and it does factor in strongly into them becoming the way they are. No one is “really doing” anything by stating an objective fact that data supports.Okay, feel free to defend the paedophile rapist. You might say you're adding context but we know what you're really doing.
Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.When faced with a rap sheet of the dead paedophile's crimes your response was to say that "he'd been abused as a child". If you had said rightly that none of that was relevant to the case then you'd have been right to say that.
And you stick to doing your thing by calling other posters bad. You do it enough, all whilst adding nothing to most discussions.Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.
Of course he's had a film crew with him for a reality show, of course he has.
I think so in Wisconson.Was Rittenhouse legally allowed to carry an assault rifle in the first place? Didn’t want to sift through 54 pages.
Yeah, because it wasn't short enough. Literally.Was Rittenhouse legally allowed to carry an assault rifle in the first place? Didn’t want to sift through 54 pages.
The judge was a joke. This and a few other reasons from the onset of the trial.Yeah, because it wasn't short enough. Literally.
Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
That was the Wisconsin law, which the defense also agreed didn't apply when they conceded Rittenhouse didn't have a short barreled rifle (which was specifically what the law banned)Yeah, because it wasn't short enough. Literally.
Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
Because of the provision in the law that allowed him to have a long gun as long as it wasn't "short barreled". That in effect made him having the gun legal and since the law didn't specify minors, the Judge threw out the charge.Haven't followed all that closely, but can someone explain why he wasn't found guilty of being underage and in possession of/cross state lines with an illegal firearm? Seemed like a layup all things considered.
Thanks. Seems like a useless distinction. If anything, a rifle with a longer barrel could be considered more dangerous, since it will generate more velocity and be more accurate.Because of the provision in the law that allowed him to have a long gun as long as it wasn't "short barreled". That in effect made him having the gun legal and since the law didn't specify minors, the Judge threw out the charge.
I agree. The flaw is in the way the law was written in 1991. At the time, the intent was to address gang violence where short barreled shotguns were used. One would think WI politicians would try to rewrite the law at this point.Thanks. Seems like a useless distinction. If anything, a rifle with a longer barrel could be considered more dangerous, since it will generate more velocity and be more accurate.
No way the R dominated legislature in WI will touch this law.I agree. The flaw is in the way the law was written in 1991. At the time, the intent was to address gang violence where short barreled shotguns were used. One would think WI politicians would try to rewrite the law at this point.
I agree. The flaw is in the way the law was written in 1991. At the time, the intent was to address gang violence where short barreled shotguns were used. One would think WI politicians would try to rewrite the law at this point.
I think so in Wisconson.
Thanks for the info.Yeah, because it wasn't short enough. Literally.
Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?The black lives matter movement is about the disregard of the social contract when applied to people of colour. If they're breaking the social contract, why shouldn't the people on the other side of the argument.
It's probably more for the George Floyd thread or the culture wars thread.BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
AgreedIt's probably more for the George Floyd thread or the culture wars thread.
Is your Achilles heel an intelligent opinion?BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
You’ve gotta do better than thatIs your Achilles heel an intelligent opinion?
Don't accept gifts from Greeks bearing bad political takes.You’ve gotta do better than that
If you think it’s a bad “political take” then let’s go to a different thread to discuss.Don't accept gifts from Greeks bearing bad political takes.