10 ms·

>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the c

>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case: https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-183807767.html https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...

Nursie 5y ago
OK, as usual, someone picks up on one of the least important bits to intimate that the whole point must be wrong. Perhaps if you'd read past that you might have been able to address the theme rather than one of the less important parts. OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.
- polartx 5y ago
  You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Not just incorrect but reality was in the exact opposite state as your comment portrayed it! When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it. The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest. That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries. > Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.

Nursie 5y ago

OK, as usual, someone picks up on one of the least important bits to intimate that the whole point must be wrong. Perhaps if you'd read past that you might have been able to address the theme rather than one of the less important parts. OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.

polartx 5y ago
You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Not just incorrect but reality was in the exact opposite state as your comment portrayed it! When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?
- Nursie 5y ago
  > You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it. The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest. That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries. > Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.