Questions About Kyle Rittenhouse

[Raptorsin7]

4 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

I don't need to answer 'what do shop owners do to protect their property from rioters and looters?', (for the same reason I can categorically say, 'kicking puppies in the face is not a good way to potty trian them' and I don't need to offer up a better way in order to emphatically say that.. )  but as has already been stated, the answer is not 'enlist an untrained 17 year old with an AR'. 

 

In this case it would be more accurate to say there those puppies are going through town destroying property, blowing up cars, looting etc. 

When the puppies were given orders to leave the area, long after the initial reason their being there is over then the puppies cannot be surprised when they get punched in the mouth when they attack those in the area trying to maintain order and stability

[AdroseAkise]

What do you all think about conceal carry? Smart or not? 

 

[Raptorsin7]

2 minutes ago, AdroseAkise said:

What do you all think about conceal carry? Smart or not? 

 

It depends on the circumstance. I would say that concealed carry should be repealed, and people should have non lethal alternatives. People should be free to have weapons to defend themselves, but concealed carry can only work in a functioning society, and the USA is too polarized for people to act rationally while carrying a weapon.

But if you were an asian person in Philadelphia for example where people are getting assaulted in the streets, it might make sense to take part in concealed carry

[AdroseAkise]

@BenG @Raptorsin7

I have to disagree with both of you, conceal carry is a brilliant way to stop immediate threats to one's life. So many active shooter situations could have been prevented if someone was conceal carrying nearby.

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, BenG said:

wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make....

We probably misunderstood each other. What was your point?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Tyler Durden

[Raptorsin7]

Why were so many people on the forum certain that Rittenhouse was culpable for the killings, but when someone comes and challenges the distorted perspective and speaks the truth no one wants to engage in specific arguments?

Probably the simplest answer. 

The vast majority of people on this forum, mods included, are not honest people. They do not, speak, live, or understand the truth.

I have said my peace. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[Ry4n]

Honestly why are Assault rifles and shotguns still readily available in America? I’ve heard you can walk into a bloody Walmart and buy a shotgun with no licence at all. I get having a small pistol for protection if you have a licence and have been checked to have no serious mental health issues, but seriously this is a joke. America is fucked if they don’t sort this out. 

[Zega]

I don't think there's any doubt that the first guy he shot was deeply troubled, but if Kyle didn't bring a rifle to wave around he may not have lunged for his gun at all. I know this is speculation, but he was clearly upset at the mere presence of people there with rifles.

After he was shot, Kyle was then seen as an active shooter in the heat of the moment. If the one guy he shot that lived had shot Kyle first and killed him, then he may have also gotten off on self-defense for stopping a perceived threat. 

People like to hone in on the specifics, but this was a domino effect.

Can we at least agree open carrying in a protest/riot/unrest is stupid? Guns only escalate, and we can see that in the video where Rosenbaum is shouting at the mock militia before it all went down.

Our gun laws are questionable at best.

[Opo]

@Fleetinglife Thanks. 

[Ry4n]

29 minutes ago, BenG said:

@Ry4n

I agree, and I know how silly it must appear to non-Americans. I don’t think you guys really understand how serious Americans are about guns. Guns get wrapped up in people’s self-identities here to a frightening extent. I’ve seen the stockpiles these people keep because they’re paranoid some politicians going to ban guns or something. And now we're acting like it’s normal for a teenager to be walking down the street with an assault rifle…

Yeah that's the furthest thing from normal, go to a shooting range if you still want to have fun with rifles, or use an old one-shot rifle for hunting, or a pistol for self defence, but for some reason they just need to have an AK-47 collection in their homes? No one had rocket launches when declaring the right to bear arms was a human right, are we going to stick to this idea with zero nuance when we have futuristic lazar guns in 40 years?

America sure is weird.

[Opo]

The god emperor has spoken. 

 

[Epikur]

Back from the ban.

Some few different takes from the left.

Rose Wrist
The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial | The Left, Misinformation, and Agitation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLscEmA-Vy8


Hunter Avalone
Kyle Rittenhouse LIES must STOP   

What if Kyle would have been black?
There is a nice video about it from Nuance bro but I can not link him because he is not from the left. 
People might get triggered.
 

 

[Fleetinglife]

15 hours ago, Zega said:

If the one guy he shot that lived had shot Kyle first and killed him, then he may have also gotten off on self-defense for stopping a perceived threat. 

Interesting hypothetical. If he would have gotten away with the same non-guilty verdict as Kyle if he would have shot him first (but I doubt there was any intent of that since that is part of the constrained narrative of the self-defense verdict to justify him of any accusation of reckless homicide or recklessly endangering safety by viewing through that paranoic prism that it was the who pulls the trigger first Wild West revolver duel situation through attempted physical threats to remove him from there and later threats of forced disarmament and Kyle therefore had to respond to that percieved lethal threat to him by shooting and killing first). So no, I think in this hypothetical, that guy would have been sentenced unlike Kyle for reckless homicide at least or more likely first degree intentional homicide because he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun in attempt to disarm him and killed him in the process with what is not his own gun. That's the double standard of those federal laws of what is or isn't considered self-defense in certain situations where there is gun carrying involved and the excessive manipulation and perverse justifaction of Second Amendment rights to suit the situation to get free of a criminal charge or guilty verdict.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Preety_India]

20 minutes ago, Fleetinglife said:

Interesting hypothetical. If he would have gotten away with the same non-guilty verdict as Kyle if he would have shot him first (but I doubt there was any intent of that since that is part of the constrained narrative of the self-defense verdict to justify him of any accusation of reckless homicide or recklessly endangering safety by viewing through that paranoic prism that it was the who pulls the trigger first Wild West revolver duel situation through attempted physical threats to remove him from there and later threats of forced disarmament and Kyle therefore had to respond to that percieved lethal threat to him by shooting and killing first). So no, I think in this hypothetical, that guy would have been sentenced unlike Kyle for reckless homicide at least or more likely first degree intentional homicide because he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun in attempt to disarm him and killed him in the process with what is not his own gun. That's the double standard of those federal laws of what is or isn't considered self-defense in certain situations where there is gun carrying involved and the excessive manipulation and perverse justifaction of Second Amendment rights to suit the situation to get free of a criminal charge or guilty verdict.

Well said. Yes I feel the same. 

It literally is the perversion of second amendment rights in my eyes. 

 

[Raptorsin7]

1 hour ago, Fleetinglife said:

Interesting hypothetical. If he would have gotten away with the same non-guilty verdict as Kyle if he would have shot him first (but I doubt there was any intent of that since that is part of the constrained narrative of the self-defense verdict to justify him of any accusation of reckless homicide or recklessly endangering safety by viewing through that paranoic prism that it was the who pulls the trigger first Wild West revolver duel situation through attempted physical threats to remove him from there and later threats of forced disarmament and Kyle therefore had to respond to that percieved lethal threat to him by shooting and killing first). So no, I think in this hypothetical, that guy would have been sentenced unlike Kyle for reckless homicide at least or more likely first degree intentional homicide because he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun in attempt to disarm him and killed him in the process with what is not his own gun. That's the double standard of those federal laws of what is or isn't considered self-defense in certain situations where there is gun carrying involved and the excessive manipulation and perverse justifaction of Second Amendment rights to suit the situation to get free of a criminal charge or guilty verdict.

The first guy clearly aggressed on kyle in a circumstance that did not require him doing so.

Watch the video I linked, he was a mentally deranged man and was looking for violence and chaos. 

There is no equivalency between the first victims actions and Kyle's actions.

You can say Kyle should not have been there, but the truth is no one should have been there that late.

Looters remained because they are mentally deranged and want to cause chaos, which provokes vigilantes to protect their community. And so at worst you have a case where two unlawful groups are present.

Then when you consider the character and aggression of the the first victim, Rittenhouse responded appropriately.

When a lunatic assaults you when you have a gun, after shouting shoot me nigga a few minutes ago, he will rightfully get shot 

 

[Raptorsin7]

https://heavy.com/news/criminal-records-rittenhouse-victims/

Criminal history of the "victims"

This forum loves talking about criticism from below with respect to SD.

Stage red sociopaths attacking a stage blue kid trying to protect business's. 

It's honestly amazing the responses people were giving on this topic. Wake up

[Fleetinglife]

4 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Criminal history of the "victims"

Did Rittenhouse know in advance their past mental health records and criminal records when he pulled the trigger? 

Did he know who the people were that he was shooting apart from them being of group protestors who went ahead and destroyed and looted private property in an act of civil rebellion?

(I wont use the simplistic emotionally loaded fearmongering and demonization term exploited by the Right - rioter and looter - since it obfuscates the wider issue - ''It has been argued that, while both civil disobedience and civil rebellion are justified by appeal to constitutional defects, rebellion is much more destructive; therefore, the defects justifying rebellion must be much more serious than those justifying disobedience, and if one cannot justify civil rebellion, then one cannot justify a civil disobedient's use of force and violence and refusal to submit to arrest. Civil disobedients' refraining from violence is also said to help preserve society's tolerance of civil disobedience..

M.L.King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law."

''In his best-selling Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order, Howard Zinn takes a similar position; Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally non-violent,

''in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change''

Zinn rejects any "easy and righteous dismissal of violence", noting that Thoreau, the popularizer of the term civil disobedience, approved of the armed insurrection of John Brown. He also notes that some major civil disobedience campaigns which have been classified as non-violent, such as the Birmingham campaign, have actually included elements of violence.)

Did he make an assumption that they were all rioters and looters by default fed by the media he consumed, and not part of civil disobedince protests for racial justice, police reform and judical reform that swept the country, and therefore they shouldn't be maimed and but shoot by default treated as violent criminals who automatically deserve the death sentence? 

You don't see the problem with this kind of reasoning of divorcing these people from the wider protests that swept the country over police brutality, extrajudicial killing of a member of an already discriminated racial group in terms of policing and the criminal justcie system and branding them as criminals where vigilante justice is thus justified against them in any measure or response deemed appropriate to the Second Amendment right holder?

Why does the Second Amendement right: ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' trump the First Amendment right to protest and why should an act of civil disobedience or rebellion earn the death sentence from guy abusing his Second Amendment rights in order not to get criminally charged or proven guilty on any verdict?

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

When a lunatic assaults you when you have a gun, after shouting shoot me nigga a few minutes ago, he will rightfully get shot 

Why? Why just not maim him, why kill him? Its a human being and his life no matter how dellusional or in affect in the moment he might seem. Kyle was supposedly a trained marksman at the shooting range. Why assume instinctively that he is criminal lunatic that is going to kill you and you not trying to maim him at least if he attempts to disarm you. Why respond fearfully and reactively reciprocating more fear and reaction? If somebody shouts shoot me nigga at you, you don't assume he is frieghtened of you being a threat to him with you being a stranger openly carrying and pointing a gun at him, not part of any law enforcement agency but an unmarked vigilante militia rando, and you shoot him to kill him and don't instead point the gun down or get out of there or make any attempt to descalate if you percieve he is in affect or crazy.

He acted in a way that he didn't want to show fear and submission to random self-appointed gun touting militia kid to police him in the guise of Second Amendmen rights that was pointing a gun at him and didn't want to back off the protestors when he was told to. That's an act of a highly desperate person who thought he was being coerced through fear of intimidation and lethality by an arm carrying vigilante kid to scare him and the other protesters out of there to abandon their right to protest and to organize over systemic reform of the policing  and criminal justice system.

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Looters remained because they are mentally deranged and want to cause chaos, which provokes vigilantes to protect their community. And so at worst you have a case where two unlawful groups are present.

Interesting causation following. Yes I agree possibly that that dynamic socio-psychologically played out in that way in SD terms in regards to some  among the protestors but it cannot be said of all them . But you make this assumption that all the protestors there were mentally deranged or wanted to cause chaos (during the nation wide protests where civil rebellion, rioting and looting in the night was widespread in all states in protest of extra-judicial murder by the police of a minority group member) in for staying there based on the later revealed fact, not during the protests, that some of those people among them had a prior criminal or mental health record and therefore are legitimate targets in the eyes of vigilantes.

 

4 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Stage red sociopaths attacking a stage blue kid trying to protect business's. 

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

he was a mentally deranged man and was looking for violence and chaos. 

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

no equivalency between the first victims actions and Kyle's actions.

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

provokes vigilantes to protect their community.

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

character and aggression of the the first victim

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Rittenhouse responded appropriately.

5 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

he will rightfully get shot 

You are showing me in an end sentence pattern of phrasing your conclusions in a language excusing random vigilante or Second Amendment gun touting violence and actions against them and to anyone they deem a threat. Call me biased or not, that's what I am noticing.

1. BLM is stage Green in essence encompassing all the deemed oppressed and marginalized minorities unjustly discriminated by the policing and criminal justice system in society, and yes some of them will be stage Red, that's how that works of accepting all of them and the marginalized and oppressed in society, you will also have stage Red people lending support who had encounters with the police and criminal justice system in society, justifiable or not, because the movement is about the reform about those said systems, but it doesnt mean that they are stage Red anymore at that moment or what you percieve to be and judged to be stage Red and not toxic Orange.

2. The mental health record was later uncovered and I don't how he was looking for violence from a random stranger kid that showed up there and didn't want to stop policing them and leave and stop pointing his gun at them

3. You decided in your mind at that moment there is no equivalency in your mind between their humanities. You erased one of them from an actor in this situation.

4. Even though they shouldn't be shielded by the law everytime to have an opportunity to have an excuse to kill in self-defense in a widespread national crisis situation and legally contested situation like a protest, civil disobedience and civil rebellion situation in the country whenever they feel like they can get away with it just because they are carrying an unconcelead weapon. That's the problem and the current prescedent this case set with the verdict and that's why people are up in arms and outraged by it of what this might justify in the future. 

5. What is the character and agression of Kyle Rittenhouse in this situation. Is he justified by being perceivedly a higher stage in SD terms than the person in question in this situation to kill him without trying to or to attempt to maim him first?

6. Rittenhouse responded in fear and like a proud, wrathful and egocentric cowardly mentally undeveloped kid would who bit more than he can chew by putting himself delibaretly in this situation clutching to his lethal weapon to the persons he percieved as criminals and shooting a person lethally after he deliberately put himself in a dangerous situation and didn't heed the warnings of any of the protestors to leave, which was showed and revealed by his breakdown and crocodile tears display in court in order to garner public support of him being an innocent white minor who can't possibly be sentenced for such a long time in prison and for him to avoid any shred of guilt or responsibilty for his actions.

7. You know I cannot but be reminded and not see some parallels with how this case turned out and aftermath reaction of some people towards Rittenhouse with the way the Horst Wessel case in Weimar Germany turned out in the 1930's. Communist militant Albert ''Ali" Hohler, and also a part of the political labor organization Red Front League, with a criminal record kills a Nazi brownshirt 19-year old paramilitary Horst Wessel that together with his unit attacked and terrorized communist activists, their political headquarters and their labor organizations. The Nazis arrange to assasinate Hohler in reciprocation. They turn Wessel into a martyr, Germans deeply crave for the restoration of law and order and economic stability in the country after the economic depression, almost constant chaos, violence and street clashes in Weimar Germany in the 1930's, the Nazis shove their way in as the only Party that will do just that and he becomes Germany's national hero while they are in power, who was petty thug and criminal also before that. I see it also now in the developmental level of people's response to the Rittenhouse case and to Rittenhouse himself, some people on the SD level of the American Right have turned him almost into a national martyr and hero and are not seeing the similiarties and striking parallels in the way how they are treating and seeing Rittenhouse in the same way Nazis and some Germans saw Horst Wessel in the 1930's and in regards to their percieved threat from the communists and the communist movement in Germany, who were seen and branded by most of them as violent criminals, degenerates and rioters. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Raptorsin7]

1 hour ago, Fleetinglife said:

Did Rittenhouse know in advance their past mental health records and criminal records when he pulled the trigger? 

Did he know who the people were that he was shooting apart from them being of group protestors who went ahead and destroyed and looted private property in an act of civil rebellion?

(I wont use the simplistic emotionally loaded fearmongering and demonization term exploited by the Right - rioter and looter - since it obfuscates the wider issue - ''It has been argued that, while both civil disobedience and civil rebellion are justified by appeal to constitutional defects, rebellion is much more destructive; therefore, the defects justifying rebellion must be much more serious than those justifying disobedience, and if one cannot justify civil rebellion, then one cannot justify a civil disobedient's use of force and violence and refusal to submit to arrest. Civil disobedients' refraining from violence is also said to help preserve society's tolerance of civil disobedience..

M.L.King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law."

''In his best-selling Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order, Howard Zinn takes a similar position; Zinn states that while the goals of civil disobedience are generally non-violent,

''in the inevitable tension accompanying the transition from a violent world to a non-violent one, the choice of means will almost never be pure, and will involve such complexities that the simple distinction between violence and non-violence does not suffice as a guide ... the very acts with which we seek to do good cannot escape the imperfections of the world we are trying to change''

Zinn rejects any "easy and righteous dismissal of violence", noting that Thoreau, the popularizer of the term civil disobedience, approved of the armed insurrection of John Brown. He also notes that some major civil disobedience campaigns which have been classified as non-violent, such as the Birmingham campaign, have actually included elements of violence.)

Did he make an assumption that they were all rioters and looters by default fed by the media he consumed, and not part of civil disobedince protests for racial justice, police reform and judical reform that swept the country, and therefore they shouldn't be maimed and but shoot by default treated as violent criminals who automatically deserve the death sentence? 

You don't see the problem with this kind of reasoning of divorcing these people from the wider protests that swept the country over police brutality, extrajudicial killing of a member of an already discriminated racial group in terms of policing and the criminal justcie system and branding them as criminals where vigilante justice is thus justified against them in any measure or response deemed appropriate to the Second Amendment right holder?

Why does the Second Amendement right: ''A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' trump the First Amendment right to protest and why should an act of civil disobedience or rebellion earn the death sentence from guy abusing his Second Amendment rights in order not to get criminally charged or proven guilty on any verdict?

Why? Why just not maim him, why kill him? Its a human being and his life no matter how dellusional or in affect in the moment he might seem. Kyle was supposedly a trained marksman at the shooting range. Why assume instinctively that he is criminal lunatic that is going to kill you and you not trying to maim him at least if he attempts to disarm you. Why respond fearfully and reactively reciprocating more fear and reaction? If somebody shouts shoot me nigga at you, you don't assume he is frieghtened of you being a threat to him with you being a stranger openly carrying and pointing a gun at him, not part of any law enforcement agency but an unmarked vigilante militia rando, and you shoot him to kill him and don't instead point the gun down or get out of there or make any attempt to descalate if you percieve he is in affect or crazy.

He acted in a way that he didn't want to show fear and submission to random self-appointed gun touting militia kid to police him in the guise of Second Amendmen rights that was pointing a gun at him and didn't want to back off the protestors when he was told to. That's an act of a highly desperate person who thought he was being coerced through fear of intimidation and lethality by an arm carrying vigilante kid to scare him and the other protesters out of there to abandon their right to protest and to organize over systemic reform of the policing  and criminal justice system.

Interesting causation following. Yes I agree possibly that that dynamic socio-psychologically played out in that way in SD terms in regards to some  among the protestors but it cannot be said of all them . But you make this assumption that all the protestors there were mentally deranged or wanted to cause chaos (during the nation wide protests where civil rebellion, rioting and looting in the night was widespread in all states in protest of extra-judicial murder by the police of a minority group member) in for staying there based on the later revealed fact, not during the protests, that some of those people among them had a prior criminal or mental health record and therefore are legitimate targets in the eyes of vigilantes.

 

You are showing me in an end sentence pattern of phrasing your conclusions in a language excusing random vigilante or Second Amendment gun touting violence and actions against them and to anyone they deem a threat. Call me biased or not, that's what I am noticing.

1. BLM is stage Green in essence encompassing all the deemed oppressed and marginalized minorities unjustly discriminated by the policing and criminal justice system in society, and yes some of them will be stage Red, that's how that works of accepting all of them and the marginalized and oppressed in society, you will also have stage Red people lending support who had encounters with the police and criminal justice system in society, justifiable or not, because the movement is about the reform about those said systems, but it doesnt mean that they are stage Red anymore at that moment or what you percieve to be and judged to be stage Red and not toxic Orange.

2. The mental health record was later uncovered and I don't how he was looking for violence from a random stranger kid that showed up there and didn't want to stop policing them and leave and stop pointing his gun at them

3. You decided in your mind at that moment there is no equivalency in your mind between their humanities. You erased one of them from an actor in this situation.

4. Even though they shouldn't be shielded by the law everytime to have an opportunity to have an excuse to kill in self-defense in a widespread national crisis situation and legally contested situation like a protest, civil disobedience and civil rebellion situation in the country whenever they feel like they can get away with it just because they are carrying an unconcelead weapon. That's the problem and the current prescedent this case set with the verdict and that's why people are up in arms and outraged by it of what this might justify in the future. 

5. What is the character and agression of Kyle Rittenhouse in this situation. Is he justified by being perceivedly a higher stage in SD terms than the person in question in this situation to kill him without trying to or to attempt to maim him first?

6. Rittenhouse responded in fear and like a proud, wrathful and egocentric cowardly mentally undeveloped kid would who bit more than he can chew by putting himself delibaretly in this situation clutching to his lethal weapon to the persons he percieved as criminals and shooting a person lethally after he deliberately put himself in a dangerous situation and didn't heed the warnings of any of the protestors to leave, which was showed and revealed by his breakdown and crocodile tears display in court in order to garner public support of him being an innocent white minor who can't possibly be sentenced for such a long time in prison and for him to avoid any shred of guilt or responsibilty for his actions.

7. You know I cannot but be reminded and not see some parallels with how this case turned out and aftermath reaction of some people towards Rittenhouse with the way the Horst Wessel case in Weimar Germany turned out in the 1930's. Communist militant Albert ''Ali" Hohler, and also a part of the political labor organization Red Front League, with a criminal record kills a Nazi brownshirt 19-year old paramilitary Horst Wessel that together with his unit attacked and terrorized communist activists, their political headquarters and their labor organizations. The Nazis arrange to assasinate Hohler in reciprocation. They turn Wessel into a martyr, Germans deeply crave for the restoration of law and order and economic stability in the country after the economic depression, almost constant chaos, violence and street clashes in Weimar Germany in the 1930's, the Nazis shove their way in as the only Party that will do just that and he becomes Germany's national hero while they are in power, who was petty thug and criminal also before that. I see it also now in the developmental level of people's response to the Rittenhouse case and to Rittenhouse himself, some people on the SD level of the American Right have turned him almost into a national martyr and hero and are not seeing the similiarties and striking parallels in the way how they are treating and seeing Rittenhouse in the same way Nazis and some Germans saw Horst Wessel in the 1930's and in regards to their percieved threat from the communists and the communist movement in Germany, who were seen and branded by most of them as violent criminals, degenerates and rioters. 

@Leo Gura Can I respond to this nonsense? 

[Fleetinglife]

@Raptorsin7

''The people on this forum and the mods are not honest people, they do not speak, live the truth''

''I have said my peace''

You made a pledge with yourself regarding this topic and issue.

''Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person''

So did I

Lets both honor our pledges, be honest with and respect the words we said and the promises we made to ourselves on this topic by saying our peaces this way.

Peace to you and me ?  .

 

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Fleetinglife

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, Fleetinglife said:

''The people on this forum and the mods are not honest people, they do not speak, live the truth''

''I have said my peace''

You made a pledge with yourself regarding this topic and issue.

''Until then we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person''

So did I

Lets both honor our pledges and respect the promises we made to ourselves on this topic by saying our peaces this way.

Peace to you .

 

 

You know, I'm sorry for my attitude. I allowed my righteous indignation to get the best of me, and I was having fun with the sparring but I don't think I was being as helpful as I could have been.

Although I disagree, I can appreciate the effort and sincerity you put into your post.

I also read you are trying to process emotions, it just so happens that I believe I've stumbled on an incredible emotional processing technique. I'd be happy to share it with you, if you want to stop my journal