This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say “Strawman” and act like you’ve achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That’s only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don’t believe The Left took control of the guy’s hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I’m not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)
You’re not being very clear here.
Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.
Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?
Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.
This is why I asked for clarification. The response to a Strawman is not to just say “Strawman” and act like you’ve achieved something (see: fallacy fallacy), the point of recognizing a Strawman is so that you can respond to it properly by restating your point/argument and clarifying where they went wrong.
That’s only a good policy if you think they actually mistook your meaning, but we both know I don’t believe The Left took control of the guy’s hand to start swinging that skateboard at Rittenhouse.
If you attack someone and get shot over it, I’m not crying for you.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)