Kyle Rittenhouse = Based God

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Possible people to condemn:

-Rioters, who are violent and hurting countless innocent people
-Kyle Rittenhouse, who only hurt people who were trying to hurt him first
-Cops, who generally help way way more than they hurt anyone, but the instances of them hurting people are highly curated to make you angry

I'm not saying which one you should choose, it's overwhelmingly self evident. You should divide your condemnation more or less proportionally, which many people are currently doing but getting the figures precisely backward cause they're retarded.

Why choose just one? Sometimes more than one thing can be true.

It doesn't matter how it's curated. I think it's disgusting to equate property damage with human life and abuse of the citizenry by the government, but it doesn't mean I support the former any more than I support the latter. It also doesn't make them equal.

[Woke Locc]

Kyle is a rioter

[Wutaan]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kyle is a rioter

I understand where you're coming from and from an individual standpoint, Kyle put himself in that position and it antagonized them. They will rake him through the coals but I agree with him and I am proud of him even though he was illogical and emotional about it. You have to realize, wars are fought by men, not by beta males and women.

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Woke Locc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Kyle is a rioter

...a rioter for justice!

As Al Sharpton says, no justice no peace.

Kyle is a peace rioter.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why choose just one? Sometimes more than one thing can be true.

It doesn't matter how it's curated. I think it's disgusting to equate property damage with human life and abuse of the citizenry by the government, but it doesn't mean I support the former any more than I support the latter. It also doesn't make them equal.

I literallly didn't say it did, I explicitly anticipated and addressed your point in the post you are replying to.

Abuse of the citizenry by a government isn't magically worse than abuse of the citizenry by the citizenry, if your concern is the abuse of human beings. Especially when the latter far, far outweighs the former unless you distort and manipulate definitions of words that have been understood for centuries.

And obviously, I'm talking specifically about what is currently happening in America in the recent past and present. I'm not talking about say, North Korea. Ironically of course, the anti-free speech logic used by the American far left at present is indistinguishable from the rationale of the North Korean government; "Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence!". Herpty derp, can't possibly imagine how that notion would be wielded and abused.

[Wutaan]

It's a testament to if you want to have the 'edgy' feelings you do be well read in them and don't interject those opinions in game to ruin my fucking immersion.

[BlackBellamy]

Lots of things are empirically correct.

Like putting a bullet through every child with Down's Syndrome.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lots of things are empirically correct.

Like putting a bullet through every child with Down's Syndrome.

Horrifying suggestion

my good chum

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Horrifying suggestion

my good chum

It is. But whole generations of learned people argued for something like that not even a hundred years ago in this civilized country.
Because eugenics is empirically correct. Even though natural mutations will always occur you can definitely improve the gene pool by culling the defective.

What do you wind up with? A world of perfect people who are ready to kill anyone who isn't.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul? -Mark 8:36

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is. But whole generations of learned people argued for something like that not even a hundred years ago in this civilized country.
Because eugenics is empirically correct. Even though natural mutations will always occur you can definitely improve the gene pool by culling the defective.

What do you wind up with? A world of perfect people who are ready to kill anyone who isn't.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul? -Mark 8:36

The Pharisees and Saducees killed Jesus and made the Talmud as apologetics because he wasn't a profit(sp).