Drunkard's Walk Forums

This first one can be interpreted as applying to many topics and viewpoints (from "it's all a Leftist conspiracy!" to "Stopping police brutality/systemic racism" and more)

Source

With regards to the Kenosha Unrest Shooting, please read the wikipedia article, take two chill pills, and call me in the morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

Seriously. I know it looks bad on the surface. And maybe maybe maybe they should have just let things be - you know, let the rioters raze the car lot and just have it all be an insurance write off.

But by all accounts, they weren't in the wrong, either. The men that went after Rittenhouse were belligerent in the first place. They were not law enforcement in any way, shape, or form. Rittenhouse did not shoot his gun until he was actually, physically assaulted. Twice this happened. Physical assault, then he fires. The third time it was because someone had him at gunpoint.

In other words, he was exercising far more discipline and restraint than anyone else there.

Lemme ask you this. What kind of gorram FOOL goes after someone armed with an assault rifle for no other reason than that he is there and armed with an assault rifle? I'm trying very hard not to be all victim-blaming here, but WHAT THE FUCKING HELL DO YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU THREATEN SOMEONE WHO IS ARMED WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE!?

I don't give a fuck what that Tweet says about bravery. It's not bravery when you go up against someone armed with a firearm when you don't have the skills to deal with that kind of opponent. There's a word for it though: it's "Stupidity". What the fucking hell was Rittenhouse doing in the first place? Wrong place and wrong time, nothing more than that. What the fucking hell were Rosenbaum and Huber doing? Vigilantism from the looks of things.

I can get why some people are upset. All the bad news about people with assault rifles. But you have to recognize the facts of the matter: these men assaulted someone else who was better armed than they were, who was not threatening anyone else, and with no real provocation beyond "He was there".

If nothing else? Then these people could have asked him what he was doing there instead of attacking him off-hand. But did anyone even attempt any sort of communication? No. It was all just "GET HIM GET HIM GET HIM!"

My advice? Quit trying to "make an example" out of someone. Least of all until you've looked at what actually happened.

(11-09-2021, 05:20 AM)Norgarth Wrote: [ -> ]

Going by what's actually written in the Bible, I think that Jesus would have wanted to cut out the middleman and have the churches fund and run the hospitals directly... and provide aid to anyone who needs it at no charge.

Getting the church to provide public services is how you get public services denied to people who the church deems immoral.

Not being Catholic is still a common reason to be moved down then enrollment list for many parish-tied schools here.

It also leads to things like the residential school scandals/tragedies (depending on what side of the Atlantic you're on).

But that wasn't the point. The point is that somebody who obviously hadn't read the Bible was trying to justify a position using what's in the Bible.

And "denying resources that should be available to everyone on the basis of morality or abusing people considered lesser for any number of reasons" is solely the province of the religious how?

Chill. It was never said to be solely so. Just that it's an expected outcome for this particular scenario. That doesn't exclude it from being the outcome of other scenarios as well.

(11-28-2021, 10:48 AM)Norgarth Wrote: [ -> ]

Because if the oil-producing countries did increase supply, the media would be reporting that oil companies aren't doing their part to fight global warming. It's lose/lose for fossil-fuel companies.

(BTW, gas prices are dropping in Ottawa today because supply is outstripping demand.)

actually, I noticed today that gas prices are about 10 cents cheaper here in Windsor as well compared to last week.

Conservatives and Liberals shake hands on the floor of the House after passing a bill unanimously. Now it goes to the Senate.



Source: Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The bill, if it passes the Senate, will ban so-called "conversion therapy" throughout Canada.

Source

as I was told by FB factcheckers , it's not certain if Bob Cratchet's income would convert the way it's indicated here, but it is a viable possibility