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

P-Ro said:
Okay, feel free to defend the paedophile rapist. You might say you're adding context but we know what you're really doing.
Click to expand...
You've got it bad.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
I'm not sure. It just seemed odd phrasing. No worries though, I know you're a good guy
Click to expand...
I was trying to keep it brief since we seem to be going a bit off topic.

We shouldn't add too much context for the faint hearted to have to consume.
 
oates said:
I was trying to keep it brief since we seem to be going a bit off topic.

We shouldn't add too much context for the faint hearted to have to consume.
Click to expand...
The faint hearted don't have the compassion to understand the broken.
 
I'm getting piled on for calling out people who are giving 'context' and excuses for paedophiles. :lol:
 
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.
 
P-Ro said:
Your reply was that he was giving "merely adding context"...for what might that be? I literally quoted the word you used
Click to expand...

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.
 
oates said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
P-Ro said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
oates said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good post. Compassion's the way to go.
 
oates said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
2mufc0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fighting fire with fire! Badum ts.
 
P-Ro said:
Okay, feel free to defend the paedophile rapist. You might say you're adding context but we know what you're really doing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
P-Ro said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.
 
Conor said:
Stick to posting about burgers mate. Real life stuff seems to be a bit complicated for you.
Click to expand...
And you stick to doing your thing by calling other posters bad. You do it enough, all whilst adding nothing to most discussions.
 
Was Rittenhouse legally allowed to carry an assault rifle in the first place? Didn’t want to sift through 54 pages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.