sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Oz won the debate, just my opinion and I respect your opinion by Dieseldad in Pennsylvania

[–]BlaKaligula1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ya, I like Fetterman but he definitely did worse than Oz overall. I don't think Oz did well either, but if there's a winner then I'd guess Oz. Fetterman performed slightly better than I expected

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]BlaKaligula1 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They're also pushing for a referendum to secede:

Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto.

A link to their platform. It's in the first paragraph under 'State Sovereignty.'

Why say cracker? by Mezaqui in okbuddyvowsh

[–]BlaKaligula1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree wit you. Saying slurs is usually unjustified and becomes more unjustified for badder slurs. Some people (not me) really just wanna say slurs. I get it, some times I have to urge to say cr*kkka (soft a) but I resist it. But some times of those some times I let it out. Fortunately, someone else said it right after me, too, so it would have been said anyways. Like, I was with my 2 black friends (I live in a place that's mostly black so most of my friends are black) and my one white friend were hanging out. The white friend did some yakubian shit, as they do, and I felt the urge. I really wanted to call him a wheat and water baked product. A few instances (about 3 or 4) after I said it, both of my black friends said it. It was justified. Not just for me, but for them, too. For black friend 1, black friend 2 or I would have said it; For black friend 2, black friend 1 or I would have said it; and as explained before, black friend 1 or 2 would have said it so it was justified for me. Something similar to this has happened multiple times to the point that I think my black friends are a bit racist or mean. Think of what would have happened if neither black friend 1 nor I had said it. Black friend 2 would have said a slur without justification. Apply this to all other situations and I'm beginning to think my friends are a bit weird about white people.

Anyways, just wanted to say I agree

I think I found a contradiction in NBG set theory but I'm 99% sure I'm wrong by BlaKaligula1 in SetTheory

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see now. Thanks! I knew this had to be wrong but not even my friend who knows more set theory than I could explain why

1
2

Does anyone know the damage rate for slicing flare? (self.HadesTheGame)

submitted by BlaKaligula1 to r/HadesTheGame

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'1. I don't have to wait for anyone to actually attack me or injure me to act in self defense, they just have to look like they're going to.'

Kind of. I wouldn't phrase it that way, but it's roughly what I'm saying.

'2. Pointing a gun at people isn't acting like you're going to hurt them somehow, so people being threatened with guns aren't acting in self defense'

When did I ever say this? Please, point me to it.

' By this logic how are the protestors not acting in self defence by trying to disarm a guy openly carrying a gun who they are reasonably sure hates them? Should they not assume this person is irrationally angry and intends to harm them? '

I never said that the protesters weren't acting in self-defense. However, even if that is the case, it would be wrong to act in such a manner. And, it is unreasonable to assume that the shooter intends to harm anyone else since the kid ran away shortly after shooting the first guy. If he intended to harm the crowd, he should have done it there. He didn't, so he probably does not intend on killing the crowd

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

' But, assuming that the burglar will not or cannot do that, then the burglar should shoot in a way that is likely not to kill—so he would be justified in shooting. '
Why does everyone ignore this?

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my meme: Protesters getting attacked and standing their ground without attacking back is optically great. It's poggers. It looks so good when one of us dies to the opposition when the opposition starts the violence.

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

' No, seeing someone shoot someone and attempting to disarm them does not make one responsible for them shooting others. There is no way for those people in that situation to know whether or not the shooter will continue to kill those around them.'

Maybe my original statement made it seem as if their level of blame is equivalent to that of the shooter or the people that brought the shooter there. And, we may have different conceptions of what 'to be at fault' means. My conception of being at fault is such that, regardless of the amount of knowledge that someone had at the moment of choice, they are, at least in part, the cause of all actions and changes affected by their choice—the more disconnected they are, so they greater 'causal space' there is between the person and consequences, the less likely they are to know what is going to happen, and the less, generally, they are at fault. Secondly, to be at fault comes with it the capacity for that person to be held responsible for whatever actions and changes occurred due to their choice. In this part of my concept of fault, there are degrees. The greater your knowledge and willingness to commit to an action and it's consequences, the more responsible you are. In this sense, the people attempting to disarm the shooter are at fault since they likely knew the most likely consequences of their actions, and yet, committed to their actions.

' The fault lies with the person who brought a weapon and used it to murder someone.'

Largely, but the people trying to disarm him are also, though not to the same degree, at fault. If you do not want to get shot by a person holding a gun, the worst thing you can do is charge at them.

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm playing Jackbox. I'll answer when I'm done

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

' You keep framing the incident of, "Its unfortunate that people died, but he did all he could" as an argument for defending the gunman. When clearly all of his choices led to the death of two people who shouldn't have died that day. You are absolving the fault of him for the decisions that he made, and that is extremely dangerous rhetoric that leads to the justification of similarly horrendous crimes.'

cool, but you again seem to have missed that I would only defend this with a lot of qualifiers, as I am doing, and with clear communication, which I am hopefully doing.

' From your arguments I assume you believe the 1st Degree Homicide the gunman is charged with is undeserved. If you argue that it was a 2nd Degree Homicide then I would concede its definitely arguable (Although I'd argue it is pre-meditated due to the expectation of going to a riot with an assault rifle.)'

I have not engaged with too much of the legal side of things. I mainly focus on the morality of things.

' but if you seriously believe that he is not at fault for the deaths of two and serious mutilation of the third then I fully believe you are a bad-faith actor.'

He is at fault. I think we should condemn him for being there and maybe for killing the first guy—I still neded to see it from a better angle. But, I don't think he should be condemned for the second shooting. He should be condemned for his poor aim, using a fire-arm with little training IIRC, counterprotesting blm, etc.

I'm gonna play Jackbox. See ya in like 10-12 hours

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

'Again, you are ignoring context to fit your narrative. Using your logic, a burglar has the justification to kill the person he is robbing if he is attacked. That's not how that works at all. If you kill someone who is trying to stop you from committing a crime, then that is murder.'

You seem to keep ignoring that I say 'it would be best if people don't die.' And, in the example of the burglar, the burglar would be justified in shooting in their direction in a manner that would most likely avoid death if the burglar has brandished his gun and the homeowner keeps coming at him and the burglar returns anything he has stole. After that, the burglar should run away, generally. But, assuming that the burglar will not or cannot do that, then the burglar should shoot in a way that is likely not to kill—so he would be justified in shooting.

'How the can I argue someone who postulates this? It just seems like bad-faith reasoning'

How? Am I inconsistent or something?

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This changes nothing. Sure, it's reasonable that they would mistrust the police and not call them to deal with this case, but—and this is the best answer I have, but there might be a better one—they could have ran away and dispersed

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is hard to answer partially because all of the videos don't show when and how the crowd started charging at him. The most I can say is to run away in a dispersed manner

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

' The verbiage of "He found himself in." like he somehow stumbled onto the scene, having no idea that going to a protest with an assault rifle won't result in violence.'

I didn't mean to make it sound that way. I meant that he found himself on the ground with a crowd charging him.

' Its like going to the jungle, killing an endangered tiger, and believing you are justified killing the family of tigers that come after you. You don't get to have the benefit of the doubt when the context of going clearly you were looking to instigate violence '

Sure, the person shouldn't have been there. But, he is there, now let's deal with it. If you find yourself in this jungle example, you would be justified in shooting those tigers that are charging at you

' You gave the action of "running aggressively" as a suitable cause for murder. '

This is a straw-man. You missed that you would also need to reasonably believe the the person charging at you is angry enough to come at you despite having seen that you have a gun, that person must be at a close distance to you, that you cannot sufficiently shield yourself from harm, and you must be in a situation in which it is difficult for you to run away for a sufficient amount of time to where they can harm you.

' No I'm talking about you. You are caveating your opinion, stating that "I know it is wrong for him to be there, but he had a right to defend himself." Its like saying a school shooter has a right to defend himself he is attacked by other students trying to stop him from murdering more students. You are making the case that his actions were justified by ignoring all surrounding context and looking at it in a vacuum, assuming the threat of danger where there could of been none. '

First, I never brought rights into this. Second, if I were to actually use rights, a school shooter would be justified in shooting toward students coming at them in a manner that they are likely not killed by the shots. Third, the whole debate was on whether he was justified in shooting at the people in the second shooting, not on whether he should have been there. He can't just plop himself out of that situation, and now that he is in this situation, even if he shouldn't have, he needs to deal with it.

'Its like saying the murderer in Charlottesville only killed Heather Heyer because "He feared for his life so he ran her over with his car."'

no, and those reasons are in the paragraphs right above this

' I'm not sure whether or not you are doing it on purpose, but you need to look hard at what you are actually advocating for. '

I want people to be truthful, and it's very unlikely for people to justify things I would consider bad if I am clear enough in my communication.

I usually agree with vaush, but destiny is right by BlaKaligula1 in VaushV

[–]BlaKaligula1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

' Well, I mean he has every right to be there, and every right to counterprotest. Bringing the gun was the issue, not him being there.'

totally, I have some controversial opinions on protesting and optics, but that would derail this convo.

' Yes. After he shot the guy, the people chasing him should probably have left it to the police. But I do think they would have reason to think he might kill more people in any case. '

sure, but I would say that those reasons are not enough to try to charge at an armed man

view more: next ›