Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 01:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  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.

Sure, at a general level, Bels agrees with you on many 2A issues, and like you, he doesn't appear to have a problem with how the law favors self defense in this case. 

But it is false to say I have not responded to him "in kind," if that means disputing his take on the trial and "points not related to the case," like political-theoretical questions about 2nd Amendment rights. I have put for more time and thought in my responses to his "off topic" posts than anyone else's. (See posts # 206, 213, 223.)

So far as I know, Bels has not defended your "mob" thesis, nor told me that I am acting in bad faith and silly for disputing it, and otherwise explained my position in terms of personal character flaws. And he doesn't claim no one is attempting to refute his arguments with facts while they are doing exactly that, then claim he is done talking because no one engages the facts. Jeezus. So his generally thoughtful and respectful demeanor on this thread, focused on argument rather than person, hardly mirrors yours. 

Thus you can't really argue that you and Bels are "mirror images" on this thread, and that I am only addressing your posts because of "the person making it"--as if bully dill were just roaming the playground looking to pick on the odd kid. 

There might very well be a connection between your personality and the form and content of your arguments, which leads you to salt them with ad hominem and to constantly invoke standards you don't follow yourself, but I don't go there. My responses to you always remain focused on the logical consistency and evidential quality of your arguments, not your character.  So in your case, I am responding, yes, but not "in kind," thus always "keeping with [my] stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality."