Eh, the point still stands, that is the level of absolue shittyness we are talking about. If we account for the backgrounds these people come from it makes the gap even wider.
Have you seen me opposing the statement that he has committed violent crimes in his past or that it isn’t the average man behaviour? I have even given more context on the nature of the crime. “Yes but …” exactly means even under this context the statement still holds true. If I thought that was not the case I would oppose your statement with facts rather than update mine. So I think it might be you who is not understanding the statement.
I don’t think you have an ulterior motive but focusing on one superficial aspect of the statement and using reductive descriptions you are missing the depth of what you have gotten into. It feels like I am saying “Like Pluto, Neptune is quite far from Mars” and you are saying “Yes but Pluto isn’t a planet and is also farther”.
Violence against others is fine so long as you do it with words that encourage hate among others in the setting of being a college campus speaker though right? I am just asking questions here.
I’ve never condoned Kirk’s actions, and as an Aussie it was amusing that after he railed against Australian gun control that he was shot mid dog whistle on a question about gun violence.
But Kirk is irrelevant to the fact that your average man is law abiding and not an addict.
Your average man in which context? From a poor background and family with troubles? Then yea in that context mostly likely your average man. But reductive statements like this would not help a discussion of this type really.
Eh, the point still stands, that is the level of absolue shittyness we are talking about. If we account for the backgrounds these people come from it makes the gap even wider.
I’ve not made any comparison with Kirk.
Simply pointing out that your average man does not have a history as a violent criminal and drug addict.
yes and I have pointed out the conclusion still holds true
What don’t you get about my statement that the average man isn’t a drug addict with a conviction for violent crime?
There’s no ulterior motive to that statement of fact. It’s just a fact. Admitting it won’t hurt you.
Have you seen me opposing the statement that he has committed violent crimes in his past or that it isn’t the average man behaviour? I have even given more context on the nature of the crime. “Yes but …” exactly means even under this context the statement still holds true. If I thought that was not the case I would oppose your statement with facts rather than update mine. So I think it might be you who is not understanding the statement.
I don’t think you have an ulterior motive but focusing on one superficial aspect of the statement and using reductive descriptions you are missing the depth of what you have gotten into. It feels like I am saying “Like Pluto, Neptune is quite far from Mars” and you are saying “Yes but Pluto isn’t a planet and is also farther”.
Violence against others is fine so long as you do it with words that encourage hate among others in the setting of being a college campus speaker though right? I am just asking questions here.
I’ve never condoned Kirk’s actions, and as an Aussie it was amusing that after he railed against Australian gun control that he was shot mid dog whistle on a question about gun violence.
But Kirk is irrelevant to the fact that your average man is law abiding and not an addict.
I mean, in the broad sense,your average man breaks the law constantly while driving, at the very least.
Speeding is a bit different from holding someone at gunpoint during a home invasion.
Which is why speeding won’t get you a felony conviction…
Your average man in which context? From a poor background and family with troubles? Then yea in that context mostly likely your average man. But reductive statements like this would not help a discussion of this type really.