The law is the law though and my bias is (to repeat) that I think carrying guns around is not the norm in my life experience (even for police). The US is the US though. — I like sushi

As a general principle, it is NOT the law that a person could do what Rittenhouse did. What Rittenhouse did, and your myopic focus on the trial about what he did, is an aberration. It is NOT par for the course in the U.S. for people to do what Rittenhouse did. It is NOT normal for a trial to be conducted the way it was. But none of that is the point.

The point is:

1. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to conduct themselves they way they did in relation to Rittenhouse, before and after the shooting. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to allow a boy to walk around with an AR at port arms, especially on public rights-of-way (i.e. not private property or his own property) in the lead-up to a protest/riot. It's NOT normal for law enforcement to direct such people, unchallenged, to aid stations. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to tell such people to go "get some" in the lead up to a protest/riot that the police were there to address. It is NOT normal for law enforcement to buddy up with strangers from out of town conducting themselves as Rittenhouse did, EVEN IF (and especially if) law enforcement is a bunch of unsophisticated Barny Fifes. And it is NOT normal for anyone (you) to say the evidence of all that is not "substantial" or for anyone to pretend they can't find it. (It is normal on the internet generally, however, to ask for proof, receive it, and then pivot. In this case it would be your subjective finding that the proof was not "substantial." I'm not going to play that game).

2. Notwithstanding the fact that #1 is true, and the aberration occurred anyway, there is no fucking way in hell that it would occur with a 17 year old black kid. But then you'd have to have a clue about the whole reason anyone at all was there in the first place. You don't have a clue because your myopic view is locked on the myopic, aberrant trial. A similarly situated black kid would have been shot down immediately, with little or no warning, at first sight, or, at the very least, he would have received the face-plant in the asphalt and a knee on the neck.

Now I don't for one second believe your allegedly innocent curiosity. I don't care if you're not from around here. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as Rittenhouse had to help out that night. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as the prosecution had of winning. You have all the innocent desire to inform yourself here as the judge had in seeing justice.

The OP by was spot-the-fuck-on. :100: :fire:

Anyway, I'm going to cede the floor to you. I don't want to play into what I perceive as faux concern and curiosity.

Maybe? It would take only one of the two persons in our example to stop imposing and there'd be no conflict. — Tzeentch

That person would have to give way. That is all the state asks. Give way. Be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others. If only individuals would do that, there would be no conflict.

Reason sure is a great councillor. My issue is that most humans seem to lack a propensity for it, and those who desire power (which are those who inevitably come to power) possess it least of all. — Tzeentch

Those who come to power have to deal with people who think a 1 oz piece of cloth is a trip to the gas chamber. So it's really a battle of wills where the individual refuses to stop imposing and it escalates from there. The state wins so yeah, it appears to the unreasonable loser that the reasonable winner is being unreasonable.

If only all individuals would be kind, respectful, courteous, considerate of others, there would be no conflict and no state. Utopia!

You're not gonna get off scot-free with that metric shit ton you pulled. lol. :smile: — Caldwell

If I was charged in WI and had that judge I would.

Everyone with their eyes open saw it. Not the jury. Thanks to the judge and a questionable prosecution.

It goes on and on. I can't believe you can't find anything. Maybe that's because you still have your head stuck in the trial. FUCK the trial. Focus on what happened before, during and after the shooting; not just the shooting. I'll do your job for you on two only:

Google "get some". Who said "get some" to who?

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

The reason I'm not giving you more is because I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole with someone who's mind is made up; confirmation bias, like talking to anti-vaxxers about science. They have a spin and denial and a nit pic for everything. They are confirmation bias idiots. And so is anyone who limited their scope of review to the the mental state of R in the nanno-second before he pulled the trigger.

Maybe as a non-American you don't understand or what to understand the context. Context is everything. That is why context was not allow in the trial. Let me simplify it for youL

If the mental state of the shooter in the moment of pulling the trigger is all that mattered in a self-defense claim, then Travis McMichael would have been found not guilty. If you don't know who he is, or what happened in the one or two seconds before he pulled the trigger, then you don't know BLM and context.

But you go ahead and keep justifying the trial judge and the cops. Just like an anti-vaxxer. Ignore context and facts that don't fit your narrative.

If there is a 'metric shit ton' I guess I can find something, so I'll look. — I like sushi

Yeah, you had to look harder to actually get the trial transcripts than you will to find all the facts omitted from the trial. Assuming the prosecutor was even trying, he was hog tied by the judge.

I found something that basically agreed with what I said — I like sushi

Yeah, beware of confirmation bias. Keep looking. Take a few days.

Show me this evidence then. — I like sushi

Google is your friend.

Often such accounts have agendas as people usually have agendas to push especially when the topic involves controversial items such as firearms in the US and protests. — I like sushi

The law has it's own agenda. There is a metric shit ton of facts and video that did not make it before the jury. If you are interested in facts, then you'd have to be really myopic to limit your review to the scope permitted by that judge. Even if he was four-square with the law, that says nothing about the facts. Your alleged desire to understand the greater social considerations in the U.S. regarding guns will be sorely wanting if you don't understand anything about who shot who with what under what circumstances that gave rise to the protests which fell on deaf ears which then resulted in riots, and then, finally, the shooting you are discussing.

But yeah, when considering the "Rittenhouse verdict", feel free to limit your review to what the judge told the jury they had to limit their review to. Ignore all the centuries of systemic racism that preceded it, not to mention the 7 shots fired into the back of a guy that could have been manhandled to the ground, and all that followed.

BLM.

Three teenagers from the indigenous Binjari community recently escaped from one of Australia’s internment facilities, the “Centre for National Resilience”. The authorities had initially rounded them up and interned them, it appears, for the non-crime of being in contact with covid-positive people, not because they carried any virus or posed any sort of threat.

The facility seems a frightening place, to me, especially for children. No visitors, no toys, no care-packages, round the clock confinement, and an ever-present police force—one wonders the point of it all if it is not an exercise in totalitarianism. According to Washington Post correspondent, Robyn Dixon, who was forced to stay there, "the feeling is part trailer camp, part hospital, part prison". At least the good officials there provide propaganda on how to maintain insanity during your internment:

“Tip: Instead of looking at this quarantine as ‘prison,’ try seeing it as a time to get to know yourself again, reflection, media detox and so on.”

No wonder they escaped. According to Obergruppenführer Michael Gunner, “all of them had tested negative for Covid the day before”. So why not just let them go? They had yet to finish their arbitrary sentence. And the threat was so grave that officials determined a police manhunt was required. They set up police checkpoints, checked registrations and car trunks, and scoured the areas until the young people were found.

The penalty is likely to be severe them. Prisoners are subject to fines and extended quarantines if they flout the rules, and all of it "at your own expense".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-covid-quarantine-howard-springs-b1967561.html?amp — NOS4A2

Damn! Now everyone has to suffer! Even those who did everything right. Blame the gubmn't, and give a pass to all those who insisted on doing things their own way. Because, you know, research. And freedum. And resistance to distance, masks, and free vax. Here comes the parade of horribles, the slippery slope. The trains to the camps and the ovens.

Side bar:

I just googled philosophy cartoon and there was some fun. Not all, but some.

If they'd left him alone a tragedy might have been averted. — frank

Or maybe they averted a greater tragedy.

Yes.

Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition?
— James Riley

Yes.

Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground?
— James Riley

Societies don't impose. Individuals in that society do. In many instances, it is the societal structure that gives those individuals the power to do so. — Tzeentch

Okay, I'm seeing "life = conflict." Meh. Agreed.

Some time ago I researched the writing of screenplays and learned about conflict as a critical and necessary aspect of story. I wondered if it was possible to write one without conflict. It's not.

I'm resolved that the operative question is the one I raised about reasonableness of the perception of imposition. It's not that there there is no imposition. There is. Rather, is the perception of that imposition reasonable? There are whiners and there are those who roll with the punches of life. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. Courts generally default to the jury on a finding of reasonableness. So it's kind of a collective, social construct. I'm good with that. The "defendant" sometimes gets to choose judge or jury. So that's on him.

:100:

The comedian aside, what of the joy they bring to others? Is the audience no different than a crowd in Rome, taking delight in watching others die? I don't think so. I think it is more like those who appreciate a painting or sculpture who may be aware the artist has a tortured soul.

As another digression, I love watching the crowd during a stand-up routine, particularly attractive women caught in unguarded, selfless, mirth. Indeed, even the not-so attractive become more so. I don't know why. Have to ask Freud or some shrink. :grin:

If one lets it turn into one. Sure. — Tzeentch

Well then, I think we may have reached a point of agreement, at least in theory.

We could drill down on the subjective issue of "reasonableness" of the perception of imposition, and whether that is relative. Some might say that any imposition at all is unreasonable. Others, not so much.

Is standing your ground and refusing to move out of the way of someone walking down the sidewalk an imposition? Is the refusal to go around someone who is standing there minding his own business the imposition? Is it the individual, or society that says sidewalks are made for walking, not standing? And if it is society that says it, is that society imposing upon my right to stand my ground?

I'd like to get into whether society politely asking an individual to mask is akin to an oppressive beat down, or is that is a subjective and unreasonable perception of imposition? But that's another thread. Suffice it to say, I agree that an individual's desire to not be imposed upon can itself be an imposition when cast upon others who don't want to get sick.

Whenever one's desires are cast on other individuals, impositions almost always follow. — Tzeentch

So an individual's desire to not be imposed upon is itself an imposition when cast upon others?

What's the source of such a right? — Tzeentch

Personally, I'm not sure. Some folks argue nature, others argue nurture. I hear a lot of philosophy has been haggling over that question for millennia. But if you take the cloths off it, and get down to the nut:

Regardless of source, "might" is the tool.

If you were a total bad ass and I was a total wimp, and you pushed me away from the fire and took my club, then that was the first imposition: individual on individual. It may be that, as a wimp, Darwinian evolution might say I had it coming. But I may wrangle the group with my superior rhetorical skills, call BS, and incite them to give you a beat-down. Hence society. Wolves, chimps and others have it too. The nature argument is that we are a social beast, a pack animal. As relatively hairless, toothless, clawless, bi-pedal pussies, we need to work together to survive.

What is the original source of the group's indignation toward your behavior? I don't know. But I side with the group and against you. I win.

Can the group go overboard? Hell yes. But can your fear of that slippery-slope, parade-of-horribles be grounds for the group to cede power back to you, the individual? Hell no. Your rhetorical skills aren't that good. You aren't Hitler. The best you can hope for is a Bill of Rights (that we also find to spring from nature). And we will check ourselves in response to your propensity for transgression, or your actual transgressions.

If you want to argue about whether the severity of the response is right, or just, that is fine. But the responding is right, not another wrong. It is not, in and of itself, a so-called "transgression" just because your total bad ass ass has been given a beat down. Oh, and that beating serves as a lesson to other would-be initial transgressors.

It's not matter of cardinal order. Unless you want to argue that limiting one's ability to trespass is an imposition. At which point we are using "impose" in an unnatural way in order to support some ideal or dogmatic sense of personal permanent right of way. — Cheshire

:100:

Even if that were the case, — Tzeentch

It is the case. You asked, I answered.

two wrongs don't make a right. — Tzeentch

The second is not a wrong.

Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose? — Tzeentch

The individual was the first to impose, hence society.

A former law partner once told me that "Reasonable minds can differ." I said "BS. If you disagree with me, your mind is unreasonable." :rofl:

I want to be understood. And if people disagree, it must be because they don't understand. So I try harder, and harder, to make them understand. But some people don't care what I think. I'm beginning to agree with them.

Don't believe everything you think.

:100: And passing on his mother's genes, either way.

Rittenhouse just barely missed getting a Darwin Award. :grimace: — frank

Now he's Simba on his way to Musafa. GOP Representatives want to hire him as an intern and he's hailed as a hero among the right wing. I guess that is how Darwin works. The left might take note.

There's a certain philosophical genius in asking a question instead of making a declarative statement; especially when you don't want an intolerant response to your intolerance.

Sometimes when trying to communicate with another, it is best to speak their chosen language.

Anyway, I've said enough on this. — Janus

Probably should have lead with that. I tried to parse the rest of it, but dinner's on and a quick skim didn't reveal any distinctions with a relevant difference. Enjoy the evening.

I still love 'punching' assholes (i.e. curb-stomping racists, misogynists, antisemites, fascists, et al). — 180 Proof

:rofl: :up: :death:

Does Y need to "beat" X or just restrain X? I'm not arguing that, if the choice was only between banning and not banning, with no other option, that banning would not be preferable. Deletion is another option, which restrains the person, while rejecting the material and not the person. — Janus

My point was, it's not, as you said, "the same game in reverse." One side is right and the other side is wrong. You've already stipulated that it is the site's prerogative on how to be right.

I sure wouldn't want to police bigots in the hopes of reformation. It's not a matter of whether Y needs to beat X or not. It's his choice to take him out for tea and explain the error of his ways, or not.

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.
— James Riley

Of course not; that's why I said it should be deleted. — Janus

Allow me to clarify. You said:

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse. — Janus

When I said that truth need not tip it's hat to BS, I meant that if X kicks a man when he's down, and Y beats X to stop the kicking, then yes, both are acts of violence. So what? It's not the same game. Y is righteous for stopping X, just like Baden was righteous for banning. So calling it the "same game in reverse" is fundamentally untrue. Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.

To me this amounts to " You think you're a man; I'll show you what a man is"; in other words playing the same game in reverse. — Janus

Truth need not tip it's hat to BS.

Banning them might just make them double down, which won't be the forum's problem, because they are gone from here, but it may become a greater problem for their partners, family or society. — Janus

I was almost persuaded by that line of thinking, but after some reflection, no. When he said: "if he is any kind of man" I was transported back to a day when any kind of man would have done exactly what Baden did.

So in the Netherlands, they would convict someone of manslaughter for an action that was in direct defense of the defendant's life? — frank

Georgia, United States, too. More than manslaughter: malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault (with a firearm), false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.

Negligent homicide in crime, gross negligence in a civil case.

Were I to wield one out on the town, I might just get picked up by the cops. — jorndoe

What color are you? That might make a difference.

Toting a shotgun across your back would be equally intimidating. — Hanover

Different strokes for different folks. If you have your weapon holstered or slung across your back, I don't even notice it. If you are brandishing it, that get's my attention.

But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. — NOS4A2

I assume you know that a privilege to drive can be conditioned on a speed limit, and that such does not constitute a deprivation of basic human rights.

So I'll try to come up with something else, like prophylactic measures designed to stop the spread of disease; specifically lockdowns. I do believe in a basic human right to peacefully assemble, and to travel interstate. However, I don't believe those rights are unconditional. Specifically, when the state is merely limiting a privilege that is commonly used as a convenience in furtherance of exercising those rights, then it is not violating those rights when the privilege is denied to stop the spread of disease. You can still assemble and you can still travel, but you can't use the state's assets and resources to do so, unless you mask, distance and vax. The state can mandate employers to mandate vaccines because employers do not have a basic human right to run a business.

And, since the rights are not unconditional, the state could go further and actually violate those rights if necessary to stop the disease.

Finally, if the ONLY reason the disease continues to spread is because the state must do so to

defend another's rights from those who would violate them — NOS4A2

then it can do so. People don't have a right to infect others. And the burden is not upon the state to prove a particular individual has a disease when individuals claim a basic human right to not be tested. That is not absolutely absurd and nonsensical. Where there is a compelling state interest, and the state utilizes the least intrusive method it can to achieve the objective, then it makes sense and it is lawful and moral to protect it's citizens thus.

But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. — NOS4A2

The point here is, the state can act preemptively to stop you from killing another. It need not wait for you to kill them to try and stop you from killing them. The state can do this through any number of ways, up to and including the threat of capital punishment. But there are many lesser ways. If someone else is violating another's rights, the state can regulate the conduct used. That is not violating your rights. You have not been imprisoned or punished. Rather, you've been stopped (we hope). If not, the state will raise the ante until you are stopped. One way or the other. That is the state's obligation to others, not to itself.

Wow. Did you just espouse transphobia?

Thought crime! Banned! Cancelled! :grin: — apokrisis

Contrary, I distinguished it. :smile: I get what you are saying, but I think being what one is, while changing another's perception of what that is, is to remain immutable.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" was "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!" — Cuthbert

That right there just fucking nails it! :rofl:

I don't pretend to have clean hands when it comes to forum rules. That said, in addition the misogyny, I got hung up on:

" . . . there is a certain European ethnicity . . . which I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against. Never mind which, and never mind why."

I want to know which, and I want to know why. But I also thought that could easily run afoul of forum protocols. While I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against certain cultural activities, like FGM, I distinguish that from ethnicity and other immutable characters, like sex, etc.

My alternative to a state that violates the rights it purports to protect is a state that doesn’t violate the rights it purports to protect. — NOS4A2

And that is the alternate we have. The U.S./Canada, et al, does not violate the rights it purports to protect, so long as the individual who's rights it purports to protect does not violate the rights of others.

I hate caveats, but sometimes feel they are necessary, so here goes: I know I don't represent or speak for the state. And you don't represent or speak for individuals who have had their rights violated. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we do. I will make a deal with you: I won't violate your rights if you and yours don't violate the rights of others. However, you have failed to keep your end of the bargain. Thus, I violate your rights, sometimes prophylactically.

If we are to remove the rhetorical representation, then you, of course, only speak for yourself and don't want your rights violated simply because some other individuals happen to have violated the rights of others. I get that. And it actually sounds somewhat appealing.

But the alternative is no state, with a bunch of individuals running around violating the rights of others, unchecked by a state.

I, on the other hand, side with the state against you. I charge you (a charge that you admittedly do not accept) with controlling your individualist comrades and, if you want the freedom from right violation that you think you are entitled to, then get them to stop violating the rights of others. If you don't control those of your bent, then we will. And it will include you, whether you like it or not. Tough. And it will be righteous and moral and lawful and consistent with individual human rights for us to do so. You (the individualist) may be special. But you aren't that special. We set up a system to protect your individual human rights. But no right is without responsibility, freedom is not free, and you will suffer unless and until human beings individually change; and start, individually, to honor and respect others. So long as there is an aberrant, selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, jerk, then we, the state, will violate. Don't want violation? Get your own house in order. And by "your" I mean individualist who think like you. Ooops! Guess what? That is exactly what you did in 1776.

:100:

not being American is a hindrance. — Tobias

Wait, what? I thought America was the center of the universe and everyone everywhere hung on every word and video that came from America. Are you telling me there are other people out there, with intelligence, and lives, and countries that matter? :gasp: