Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[*Nately120*]

(11-23-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another excellent point, two in one thread!  I don't think I can honestly disagree in general, but I do stand by the point that adding that qualifier at the end is important.  Morality is subjective, after all, there are parts of the world where throwing gay people off a roof or marrying an eight year old is acceptable, while here we find both activities utterly repugnant.  But in this context I think we can infer that he's speaking to standard Western morality, which would preclude murder or violence against someone simply because of their political views.

This is where things get subjective.  I believe the American idea of morality can be called into question when people are deeming it moral to look for fights where they can use lethal force.  But again, that's me using my cynical mind to assume that people who take weapons to areas where people they want to shoot are gathering have anything but the purest intentions.  It's entirely possible my disinterest in taking an assault rifle to a protest of any type is merely evidence that I live a charmed life.  Then again, things change.  Imagine telling people years ago that an immunologist would require armed security.  We're through the looking glass, here people.

It also baffles me that people who legimately think they will have to answer to Jesus himself someday are confident their "clean by American standards" bill of innocence will hold up in the court of the Almighty.  Then again, perhaps Jesus appoints a good lawyer to you before your trial.  

And again, it's the hijacking and constant invoking of the concept of Jesus by the neo-cons that makes me double-down on my skepticism of the morality of armed counter-protesters. That and adding the morality part on there is a nice way for him to cover his ass in case all this "fight fight fight gun gun gun" rhetoric convinces people to get themselves into some morally gray areas.