why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in “self defense” is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their “life threatened for no reason” and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse’s situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say “Strawman” and act like you’ve achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That’s only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don’t believe The Left took control of the guy’s hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I’m not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)
why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in “self defense” is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their “life threatened for no reason” and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse’s situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
Maybe don’t attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies?
Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him.
You’re not being very clear here.
Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.
Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?
Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.
This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say “Strawman” and act like you’ve achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That’s only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don’t believe The Left took control of the guy’s hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I’m not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)