11-12-2021, 01:53 AM
(11-11-2021, 11:44 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Posting yet another link to a video showing only Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse is EXACTLY addressing a "fact-based argument made in return." The "diminishing return" you avoid here is admission your "mob" was one person, that your description was inflated by that partisan vision you claim others exhibit.
It wasn't one person, it would take a minimum of two to include the guy who fired the hand gun. But don't take my word for it, it's on video. Stop it, you sound silly.
Quote:What you call "addressing points you've already addressed" is just more of your refereeing your own case, declaring points settled which aren't and imposing thematic limits on jj's thread. People still interested in this thread are free to consider Rittenhouse trial from a narrow legal angle focusing on how law and evidence come together, but they are just as free to place evidence, law and events of the trial in a larger social-historical context. If they are not satisfied that topics declared closed are really closed, they are free to continue addressing them.
Please do forgive me for declaring my points "settled". Since no one has even attempted to refute them with facts I made the unspeakable mistake of considering them closed. But, as you raise a doubt, please feel free to refute any of my fact based assertions with fact based counter points. I would add that Bel's position on this case almost exactly mirrors my own, yet you have not responded to him in kind. This rather leads me to believe that your issue is not with the argument, but with the person making it. That generally isn't a good look and it's definitely not in keeping with your stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality. For all your protestations otherwise, you genuinely do not appear to want a legitimate discussion. But that's just my opinion, I leave it to others to form their own.
Quote:*I wouldn't have mentioned "silly," but it was your bruised sensibility which complained of "petty insults"--after your not-so-petty accusations of bad faith and deliberate falsehood. Why not avoid all the ad hominem altogether?
Yes, I am easily offended, so I do appreciate your taking that into consideration. But, as you continue to argue points not related to this case, or anything but me specifically, I will now consider our conversation over. Thank you for your time, if nothing else.
