Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”
You took my position:
open carry is not uncommon in Wi
and transformed it into
people walking around Kenosha with AR’s is a common sight
These are two completely different statements. Is the opposite of uncommon by default common? Even after I conceded that it would still alarm some people. I don’t get it. Is there a different way I should explain myself? I’m so lost :( What am I doing wrong? Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word uncommon. There has to be a better word. Maybe surprising?
Okay, if it is not a common sight to see people carrying ARs in Kenosha, then it makes sense that people at a protest would take that as a threat and act accordingly. I really don’t know what you’re saying here other than doing some ridiculous “both sidesing” when only one side committed murder.
I don’t really remember any more because I had to translate my position through several iterations since it kept getting twisted. I have to figure out how to make my points more direct and succinct. It seems no matter how much preamble and explanation I offer, my position gets twisted one way or another.
All I’m trying to say is that when we argue with the other side (in this case conservatives that defend Rittenhouse) we should be mindful if we are addressing the ethical argument or the legal argument. Typically, conservatives will overstate the legal argument and dismiss the ethical argument.
If I had an elevator pitch it would be this:
>> It’s helpful to steelman the opposition to be able to refute it better. <<
That’s all. I need to go walk my dog now.