Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Roundy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 84  Next >
1
No... He definitely expressly stated his intent was to act as a vigilante. Mind you, he didn't use that specific word. But his stated purpose for traveling to Kenosha with his assault rifle in tow was to protect a local business in an area where he expected there to be violence. That's literally what vigilantism is. Generalize it, and you have the definition of vigilantism.

Okay, none of that happened. Next.

Ok, I was mistaken that he traveled with the weapon. It doesn't functionally change the argument that he was acting as a vigilante. He was expecting violence, he was there to protect a car dealership, he had a deadly weapon. Is any of that not factual?

Quote
Because he looks like a minor. Store clerks are expected to card anyone who looks like they could be under 35 that tries to buy a pack of cigarettes.

They're cops, not cashiers, Roundy.

So? How is a law like this supposed to be enforced if cops aren't IDing people who look like minors and are carrying a weapon?

Quote
Weird that you're so flippant about this given that three people are dead because they didn't ask for his ID.

Three people? Really? Just goes to show that you're yet another person who hasn't watched the trial or the videos. Sad!

Oh, you got me, I misspoke. Two dead, one injured. It doesn't change my argument.

Quote
Kyle didn't even interact with the cops until after the shooting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/29/fact-check-video-police-thanked-kyle-rittenhouse-gave-him-water/5661804002/

Quote
you Righties

lmao

Ok

Rittenhouse was allowed to carry that rifle in WI. IDing him would have been a useless infringement.

The charge was thrown out because of the length of the barrel (a silly loophole, but whatever). That's not something that would have been obvious to the cops. But I see your point. IDing him might not have prevented anything.

2
On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

He wasn't specifically or expressly doing either of those things. That's your own speculation on the subject fed to you by other people speculating on the subject. That sort of speculation is nonsense, which is why very coincidentally, it wasn't presented in court.

No... He definitely expressly stated his intent was to act as a vigilante. Mind you, he didn't use that specific word. But his stated purpose for traveling to Kenosha with his assault rifle in tow was to protect a local business in an area where he expected there to be violence. That's literally what vigilantism is. Generalize it, and you have the definition of vigilantism.

Quote
I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

Why would a cop question a person open carrying in a state where such a thing is completely legal?

Because he looks like a minor. Store clerks are expected to card anyone who looks like they could be under 35 that tries to buy a pack of cigarettes.  Our society is broken if we can't expect a similar level of caution in the case of carrying a deadly weapon.

 
Quote
You could argue that the cop should have asked Rittenhouse for his ID, but other than that, there's nothing inherently wrong with carrying a "deadly weapon" out in the open.

Weird that you're so flippant about this given that three people are dead because they didn't ask for his ID. But you Righties tend to go through mental gymnastics like this to justify heinous acts all the time so I suppose it's not surprising.

3
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?

 A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?

They win and no chance of appeal as well.

Ah.
Yeah that does sound like a sweet deal.

And one I imagine they feel they need given the fiasco this trial has been.

4
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wisconsin-so-vigilantism-n1283383

I'll admit that the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me uncomfortable, largely because based on the video evidence I don't see how the actual violence that took place couldn't be considered self-defense. On the other hand, he was specifically and expressly going to the event to act as a vigilante. His intent in that regard is quite clear. And that action directly led to the deaths of three people. Is it really just if he gets off scot free?

I still think the real villains are the cops who chatted up an apparent minor carrying around a deadly weapon without questioning it. The fact that they welcomed his presence and the presence of others acting as vigilantes is troubling and should be considered negligent.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 02, 2021, 03:12:22 PM »

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 23, 2021, 02:18:33 PM »
When the basis for Trump's claims are more concrete than "But I wanted to win the election!"  please let us know. Until then saying that the claims were baseless is a statement of fact, not editorializing.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 23, 2021, 07:26:51 AM »
"Netflix Walkout Over Dave Chappelle’s ‘The Closer’ Reveals List Of Asks – Deadline" https://deadline.com/2021/10/dave-chappelle-netflix-walkout-rally-trans-staffers-list-of-asks-1234859014/#respond

The article, of course, takes the typical media slant that Dave is evil, Netflix out of touch, and these employees' demands aren't ridiculous fantasies. But look at the comments to see what people really think.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 21, 2021, 08:09:22 PM »
"Dave Chappelle showing no signs of getting canceled after sold-out show in London | Fox News" https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-not-canceled-sold-out-show-london.amp

Hey, look, even Fox News seems kinda sorta almost ready to admit that cancel culture isn't real.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 21, 2021, 12:56:23 PM »
Some people are just too big to fail and their legacy endures.

Singer of the Lost Prophets ... cancelled. Their music just wasn't that good.
Michael Jackson ... played on the radio all the time.

Dave Chapelle isn't getting cancelled because he is one of the best acts out there. Its anyone just below that who can be cancelled and disappear. The people who really get battered are regular people. Maybe someone works for Pepsi, makes a tweet and the next thing, they lost their job.

I don't think the little guy losing his job as a bottler at Pepsi over something he tweets is what people are talking about when they talk about cancel culture. It seems to specifically refer to public figures in most cases.

Not that that's not a problem, if it's happening, but I question how widespread it can possibly be, and it's not what I'm talking about anyway.

And the singer of Lostprophets is apparently a disgusting sexual predator. As I pointed out there's a clear difference between what he was cancelled for and what JK Rowling was "cancelled" for. If that's the best example you know of a celebrity actually being cancelled it just underscores my point.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Cancel culture
« on: October 20, 2021, 03:21:56 PM »
So, Dave Chappelle basically just doubled down, tripled down, and quadrupled down on his comments about trans folks, even daring to declare himself "team TERF", which is someone who considers himself a feminist, but excludes trans people.

And the internet is really angry! Several personalities have said they would no longer work with Netflix over it. Twitter is abuzz, as it tends to get in these situations.

But you know what? Far from ending his career, all the hubbub seems to be doing is providing free publicity for Dave. His career is just fine, as it has been after years of complaints over his past comments.

Is Netflix hurting over it? Based on the success of shows like You, Clickbait, and the legitimately amazing Squid Game, apparently not.

JK Rowling pissed a lot of people off with her "trans phobic" comments. But people are still reading her books and going to see the awful movies being made that are connected to them. I understand she's starting a new series. People have complained, but her career seems just fine.

Even Shane Gillis, the guy who lost his job at SNL for telling some jokes that some people found offensive on his podcast, is still practicing comedy. He's still making money. Yes, he lost an opportunity over it. But people have lost high profile jobs for saying controversial things as long as TV has existed. Contracts have included clauses saying people would lose their jobs if they say or do the wrong thing as long as the entertainment industry has existed. He lost an opportunity, sure. But he probably would have been in the same position 20 years ago. Michael Richards' career still hasn't recovered from the racist comments he made a couple decades ago or so.

Pity Joe Rogan, huh? He pisses the Left off all the time! His career is really suffering for it, huh?

Cancel culture as it applies to people like Kevin Spacey or Matt Lauer are different, I think. In the other cases, people are trying to cancel celebrities for expressing an opinion, or telling an offensive joke (which is ridiculous, because if comedy isn't offending to some degree they're doing it wrong). When the attitude is directed towards sexual predators, it's a completely different thing, and absolutely justified.

Canceling celebrities for expressing a controversial opinion, or even telling a racist joke, is not. But fortunately that doesn't actually seem to be happening. Where cancel culture is hurting the industry right now is studios treating it like a real thing, and fearing crossing lines as a result. But hopefully the survival of Dave's career has shone a light on just how overblown that fear really is, and will hopefully lead to creators not being afraid of taking chances again, and studios recognizing that they can survive even if they have someone on their roster who once said it was child abuse to give hormone suppression therapy to little trans kids who don't have any way to fathom how awesome an orgasm really is, or have expressed the opinion (as I have) that allowing women who were born as men to compete in women's sports is inherently unfair. So kudos to him for that, because it's about time.

/soapbox

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 14, 2021, 05:07:31 PM »
That's one way of interpreting it. Another would be that trump is urging republican politicians to make it their priority to destroy the integrity of our election system.

And let's face it, between Republicans who are dumb enough to buy into the BS and Democrats fearing that Republicans are working to ensure they can steal elections more easily in the future, mission accomplished. Can our election system really be said to have integrity at this point? Does anybody trust that our future elections will be fair?

We might as well be living in North Korea, as much integrity as our democracy has right now.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 14, 2021, 01:56:32 PM »
What happened to your brother-in-law and sister?

Not much really. They died, of course, but so will you and me eventually so it's no big deal.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 13, 2021, 08:49:36 PM »
Action80, saying someone else needs to back up his claims with evidence.  Ha ha ha... Hahahaha...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sorry. Thanks for the laugh, lackey.

14
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58869865

Well that doesn’t sound great

I mean he can still reach for a gun, he still has working arms. I'm sure the police were perfectly justified in how they handled him, and also that his ethnicity had nothing to do with it.

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 11:26:33 PM »
In your world, Geico is lying about insurance because Gecko’s can’t really talk. Lol

Seriously, lackey has said some out there things but this...

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: October 08, 2021, 12:47:23 PM »
Let's remember he's just a puppet. He's only repeating what others tell him to. You can't always (or usually) expect him to present a coherent argument; it's likely he doesn't understand the point his puppetmasters are trying to make any more than we do.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 08, 2021, 12:10:35 PM »
It's about time Sandokhan hijacked this thread with his rambling, overly verbose nonsense. It was starting to get a little stale.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 03, 2021, 02:25:29 AM »
some quality trollbait, right here

Nice try, Tom.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 30, 2021, 01:56:48 PM »
Tom's just being a good little puppet, that's all. I hate being the guy to defend Tom, but y'all really are asking too much of him. You simply can't expect critical thought from someone whose every thought and action is dictated by others.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 29, 2021, 12:17:37 AM »
I mean it's about time

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 84  Next >