Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
24,105
Supports
Arsenal
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.
 

AllGoodNamesRGone

New Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2021
Messages
844
Supports
Arsenal
Your reply was that he was giving "merely adding context"...for what might that be? I literally quoted the word you used
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.
 

P-Ro

made his 2000th post in the 2019 caf awards thread
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
6,042
Location
Salford
Supports
Chelsea and AFC Wimbledon
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 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.
 

oates

No one is a match for his two masters degrees
Scout
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
24,105
Supports
Arsenal
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,490
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.
Good post. Compassion's the way to go.
 

Peter van der Gea

Likes Pineapple on well done Steak
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
1,794
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.
My man.

These people don't want to understand the nuances of a broken soul.

As I said before, I'm a survivor and I didn't become an abuser, but when you're that messed up, all your lines are blurred. It takes strong people to not gift forward the pain you've been given.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,211
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.
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.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
25,510
Location
Moscow
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.
Fighting fire with fire! Badum ts.
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
9,584
Okay, feel free to defend the paedophile rapist. You might say you're adding context but we know what you're really doing.
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.
 

Conor

Full Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
2,514
Location
Only custers give up
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.
Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.
 

P-Ro

made his 2000th post in the 2019 caf awards thread
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
6,042
Location
Salford
Supports
Chelsea and AFC Wimbledon
Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.
And you stick to doing your thing by calling other posters bad. You do it enough, all whilst adding nothing to most discussions.
 

Baneofthegame

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
1,625
Was Rittenhouse legally allowed to carry an assault rifle in the first place? Didn’t want to sift through 54 pages.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
25,510
Location
Moscow
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.

Edit: at least it was the interpretation of that law that the judge had implemented — as far as I understood it was his call.
 

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
3,703
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.
The judge was a joke. This and a few other reasons from the onset of the trial.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
119,637
Location
Hollywood CA
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)
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
4,256
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.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
119,637
Location
Hollywood CA
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.
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.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
4,256
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.
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.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
119,637
Location
Hollywood CA
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.
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.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
16,712
Location
Florida
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.
No way the R dominated legislature in WI will touch this law.
 

WI_Red

Redcafes Most Rested
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
7,417
Supports
Atlanta United
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.
:lol::mad::nervous::(

Never happening here. Our extreme gerrymandered state legislature is too busy currently trying to destroy nonpartisan local election boards so they can certify whatever results they want.
 

Achilles McCool

New Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
1,911
Location
Nowhere fast
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.
BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
 

The Firestarter

Full Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
20,100
I think I know why the long barrels can't be banned - it's probably because they are considered "weapons of war", and thus protected by the 2nd ammendment. In other words, suitable to fight the rebellion against the government army possessing gunships tanks and fighter jets.

You really can't make this shite up.