• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

It's exactly what you're saying, but deny it all you want. Everyone else can read the ◊◊◊◊ you write.
Why didn't you actually quote me, then? Why did you put words I didn't say in quotes?
Yeah, that's the problem with y'all on the right. Killing people is a game. A fun game.
No, that's not the game. Making up positions for your adversaries is the game that you like to play. You can't argue without using straw. You don't even know how to.
 
Why didn't you actually quote me, then? Why did you put words I didn't say in quotes?

Because you guys on the right love to pettifog. Rather than just lay bare what you're actually saying you like to drape it in weasel words. The reason I put them in quotes was to show they weren't my specific words. Is this disingenuous questioning over yet? I know you know why I did it. It's common practice around this forum, but if being obtuse is your bag, far be it from me to stop you.
No, that's not the game. Making up positions for your adversaries is the game that you like to play. You can't argue without using straw. You don't even know how to.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your opinion of my style means so little to me. I can't even come up with a comparison as to how little they mean to me. Trumpers insulting me is quite possibly the biggest compliment I can receive. As said in Rick and Morty, save your ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ boo's, I've seen what makes you cheer.

I got other threads to pay attention to, later kid.
 
Because you guys on the right love to pettifog. Rather than just lay bare what you're actually saying you like to drape it in weasel words.
Even now, you can't help but argue with straw men. You can't argue against what I'm actually saying, so you substitute your own version, and when you get called on it, you claim that I didn't mean what I said, I MUST have meant this other thing that you would prefer to be arguing against.

Are you not even capable of intellectual honesty? No, of course you aren't.
The reason I put them in quotes was to show they weren't my specific words.
But they WERE your specific words. Nobody but you ever said them. I sure as hell never said them. But you would rather argue against your straw man version of me than against the real me, which is why you didn't actually quote me.
 
Going out on a limb, here... because you never 'actually' asked me? Are you confused who you are talking to, and about what? It would explain a good deal.

i know you guys can get pretty dead set on relitigating these arguments and maybe enjoy it to a certain degree, but do honestly think they give a ◊◊◊◊ about anything other than whether or not rittenhouse was on their side or not?
 
i know you guys can get pretty dead set on relitigating these arguments and maybe enjoy it to a certain degree, but do honestly think they give a ◊◊◊◊ about anything other than whether or not rittenhouse was on their side or not?
Every accusation is a confession. You aren't actually concerned with the law or the facts of the case. Kyle is on the wrong side, so that makes him guilty to you.
 
He was on the wrong side of integrity, morality, and character, agreed.
Your sense of all of these is suspect. But regardless, he was not on the wrong side of the law. That's the reality of the situation, and you just can't accept it.
 
i know you guys can get pretty dead set on relitigating these arguments and maybe enjoy it to a certain degree, but do honestly think they give a ◊◊◊◊ about anything other than whether or not rittenhouse was on their side or not?
I know, I know. There's no point. It just seems so obvious, though. A lot of us beat it to death because the counter argument is just so weak.

Like, Wisconsin law says flat out that minors like Kyle can't open carry. But buried in the hunting laws, they can carry long guns. This obviously refers to when hunting.

In my state, we have a similar exemption for minor hunters, but because we interpret the 'spirit of the law', rather than the letter of the law, our children aren't open carrying long guns in protests anong adults.
 
Last edited:
I know, I know. There's no point. It just seems so obvious, though. A lot of us beat it to death because the counter argument is just so weak.

Like, Wisconsin law says flat out that minors like Kyle can't open carry. But buried in the hunting laws, they can carry long guns. This obviously refers to when hunting.

In my state, we have a similar exemption for minor hunters, but because we interpret the 'spirit of the law', rather than the letter of the law, our children aren't open carrying long guns in protests anong adults.

i think the rittenhouse debate in the context of the years since was a precursor for how intellectually dishonest you have to be to continue to be a conservative.

here’s my confession: i don’t respect it
 
Like, Wisconsin law says flat out that minors like Kyle can't open carry.
The judge, who knows a lot more about Wisconsin law than you do, disagrees. But you can't accept that. You can't accept reality. Reality offends you, so it must be denied.
 
I know, I know. There's no point. It just seems so obvious, though. A lot of us beat it to death because the counter argument is just so weak.

Like, Wisconsin law says flat out that minors like Kyle can't open carry. But buried in the hunting laws, they can carry long guns. This obviously refers to when hunting.

In my state, we have a similar exemption for minor hunters, but because we interpret the 'spirit of the law', rather than the letter of the law, our children aren't open carrying long guns in protests anong adults.
Don't be upset that he had good lawyers. If you or someone you cared about were in the same predicament, you'd want the same.
 
seriously? what checks are you even pretending to think of?
When someone is threatening your life, that's foreground information. You don't need to look up their criminal record or social credit score. You can deal with them based on how they present in the moment.

And a jury decided that this "foreground check" provided KR with all the information he needed, to conclude that shooting was justified.
 
Kyle Rittenhouse got off in court, and that's shameful, but he didn't
by any means get off cleanly; in truth, cleanliness will never be associated
with him, not for years or decades, not for the remainder of his wretched life.
No decent person will ever hear his name without feeling -- and expressing! --
revulsion and contempt. Whenever he's recognized, he'll immediately be in
physical danger. He's going to live a rather fugitive existence, quite as if
he'd been found guilty.

He can never make amends. No matter what expressions of remorse
he may utter, no one will respond with anything but scorn. And disbelief,
because the capacity to feel shame is so obviously beyond him.

He'll always have at least a few defenders, and people who notice -- not many as
time goes on -- will judge little Kyle by his friends, and retreat from the odor.

So you see? Even cases like this can sometimes result in some
measure of justice.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom