Kyle Rittenhouse Case starts

[Norbert L]

This appears to be the best argument of the ‘fake news’ mob. Just think it through - this almost never happens. We’re talking about a few instances a year of information that is mistaken and later corrected, out of millions of news stories. It’s like trying to argue that someone choking on an M&M proves confectionary companies have a plot to kill everyone.

I'm hearing three things in your comment. 1)yes it exists 2)there is fake news and 3)nothing to see here!

Just think that through.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm hearing three things in your comment. 1)yes it exists 2)there is fake news and 3)nothing to see here!

Just think that through.

1) Errors exist? Is that a question?
2) Meaning what? That on extremely rare occasions errors are made, yes. What is it that you mean? I suspect something other than a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.
3) Occasional, 1 in several million temporary errors to see here. What evidence do you have, other than vague impressions of things you haven’t even read, that there is anything more to support your accusations?

If that is literally all you can see in my previous post, then I suggest you should consult your user manual for ways to reset.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Given your answer to my question, "are you claiming that all journalists must be accredited/rubber stamped by a third party before they are viewed as having integrity?" is "but yes".

This is incomplete to the point of being misleading without including the strict qualifications that followed, namely:

...most real journalists, and more importantly, journalistic organizations, have earned their respect through adherence to high journalistic standards.

Add to that, the indisputable nature of journalism, where they historically for decades have had to issue retractions due to inaccuracy of their reporting at times.

If you are comparing respectable journalism with YouTube bloggers on this ground, you have to ask yourself why there have not been numerous retractions from Tim Pool and other similar posts by individuals. Is it that they are far more accurate in their reporting? Hardly! Tim does not issue retractions for inaccurate reporting because he does not care about journalistic integrity or his reputation with the public at large. He just moves on. There is no mechanism to call him to account because he is not subject to any mechanism. Same for all the other individual blogger/commentators. They never issue retractions. They have their fans, some on the left and some on the right, and their fans don't care. The fact that reputable journalism sources issue retractions is proof that they do care about the standards they are striving to uphold, and are not focused on serving just their fan base.

In remembering my initial comment about your view on Tim Pool, "Your not making any useful point unless I hear what Tim said was either wrong or at least in question. You would need to reference the time stamp he said it and supply a more rational answer." You still haven't made any useful response. Why?

Because I do not care what Tim Pool said on YouTube. He is not here to debate. If Tim Pool wants to join this forum and debate with everyone else, I will gladly debate the points he makes here, point by point. But only with him. If you want to make Tim Pool's points your own, then go ahead and present them here as your own points, and I will debate you too. But I am not going to debate a YouTube blogger who is not here to engage with me. You might just was well cite what your next door neighbor said, and I would not debate him either, unless he showed up here to debate like everyone else. That is why I don't bother watching every YouTube video people cite, unless it has some authority behind it. Tim Pool has no more authority than Seamus Gorman, Ryan George, "J" and Ben Carlin, Destin from "Smarter Every Day", and many other YouTubers that I find much more entertaining.

 

[Norbert L]

1) Errors exist? Is that a question?
2) Meaning what? That on extremely rare occasions errors are made, yes. What is it that you mean? I suspect something other than a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.
3) Occasional, 1 in several million temporary errors to see here. What evidence do you have, other than vague impressions of things you haven’t even read, that there is anything more to support your accusations?

If that is literally all you can see in my previous post, then I suggest you should consult your user manual for ways to reset.

I decided not to read to much into what points you were trying to make. They're an accurate condensation of what you were explaining. You did admit that journalistic retractions exist. That in your view it's used as "the best argument of the ‘fake news’". And are dismissive of its' existence "this almost never happens."

That can't be walked back

This is incomplete to the point of being misleading without including the strict qualifications that followed, namely:

From your first comment, this is about an accusation levelled at Tim Pool's creditability and integrity. Making baseless accusations against a person's character is known as an ad hominem. I get it, he makes points using his expertise that many people disagree with.

Since then I haven't heard you refer to any of the substance of the video. Given the manner of accusation against him, a personal view like that is still useless.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Since then I haven't heard you refer to any of the substance of the video. Given the manner of accusation against him, a personal view like that is still useless.

It is nothing personal against Tim Pool. It is just the observation that his opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of my next door neighbor. And I have nothing against my next door neighbor either. And you would not be impressed if I told you my next door neighbor thinks Kyle is guilty of murder, would you? So please stop trying to get me to take a stand on Tim Pool. I won't do it. But if the subject is Kyle Rittenhouse, there are much more authoritative legal sources about the case that we could be quoting. If you are so impressed by Tim Pool's take on the Kyle Rittenhouse case, then make your case about those points without reference to Tim Pool and I will debate you. I will not debate Tim Pool unless he shows up here in this forum.

 

[Tom 1]

You did admit that journalistic retractions exist. That in your view it's used as "the best argument of the ‘fake news’". And are dismissive of its' existence "this almost never happens."

That can't be walked back

Of course retractions are made - ? What is your point? Are you aware of any industry, any company, any person who doesn’t make errors?

You seem to be missing the rather obvious point: the occasional, extremely rare, error among millions of examples as ‘the best argument’ means that there is no argument at all. People claiming a blanket ‘fake news’ on such a flimsy basis should not expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Tom 1]

That can't be walked back

Why on earth would I want to ‘walk it back’. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Spicy morning in court. Look at big boy.

This was right after the Prosecution's star witness admitted to the court that the defendant (Rittenhouse) did not fire on him until after the witness had pointed his own pistol at the defendant.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Spicy morning in court. Look at big boy.

This was right after the Prosecution's star witness admitted to the court that the defendant (Rittenhouse) did not fire on him until after the witness had pointed his own pistol at the defendant.
View attachment 308186

WOW and I have to wonder how it is that the prosecution kept this key evidence silent
all this time ?

 

[Justin-H.S.]

My favorite witness was Sal "10 cars" Khindri:

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Spicy morning in court. Look at big boy.

This was right after the Prosecution's star witness admitted to the court that the defendant (Rittenhouse) did not fire on him until after the witness had pointed his own pistol at the defendant.
View attachment 308186

The masterful cross-exam in question:

 

[Job 33:6]

He’d already killed someone armed with a shopping bag at that point.

I was going to say, from my understanding, the rioters were under the impression that Rittenhouse was an active shooter who had shot someone. Hence why they chased him.

 

[Job 33:6]

My opinion is that people just aren't particularly intelligent beings, in general.

When we drive cars for example, oftentimes it's like technology develops faster than we know how to use it and we end up road raging and killing one another in vehicular accidents because we don't want to be 30 seconds late for work and hate being cut off. In a sense, much like a chimpanzee, people just haven't evolved at the rate that our technology has and we don't quite know how to use our tools.

And with guns, it's similar. It's like we don't really know, in a general sense, how to properly handle them, much less Rittenhouse who appears to be just a kid.

So you have this untrained kid and he has a pretty serious weapon. It's not a little handgun, it's a large, assault rifle that we might otherwise only see on a battlefield in Iraq. And not only does the kid not know how to handle his weapon, but the people around him don't know how to respond to it either. Trying to grab it out of his hand for example.

In order of responsibility, I would start by blaming A. the government for allowing a kid to carry an assault rifle around. Then I would blame B. Rittenhouse for making the decision to walk around like batman with an assault rifle in the middle of a riot, then id blame C. the mentally insane guy that tried to take away Rittenhouses weapon and then D. the kid who hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard in an additional effort to disarm a vigilante who shot a guy with a grocery bag.

Rittenhouse shot 3 people. Each with their own mindsets and ideas. If he didn't bring an assault rifle to a riot, none of this would have ever happened. And further, if the government would have regulated this issue and made it illegal to carry the weapon to begin with, then maybe Rittenhouse wouldn't have made the choices that ultimately resulted in these deaths. We don't live in Afghanistan. There just isn't any reason to have a combat style weapon like that in a residential or commercial town.

 

[Norbert L]

Why on earth would I want to ‘walk it back’. What point are you trying to make?

It is nothing personal against Tim Pool. It is just the observation that his opinion is no more authoritative than the opinion of my next door neighbor. And I have nothing against my next door neighbor either. And you would not be impressed if I told you my next door neighbor thinks Kyle is guilty of murder, would you? So please stop trying to get me to take a stand on Tim Pool. I won't do it. But if the subject is Kyle Rittenhouse, there are much more authoritative legal sources about the case that we could be quoting. If you are so impressed by Tim Pool's take on the Kyle Rittenhouse case, then make your case about those points without reference to Tim Pool and I will debate you. I will not debate Tim Pool unless he shows up here in this forum.

We're all aware of the public distaste of politicians who are presented a challenging question and proceed to not answer it with the answer they give.

Instead of proceeding to dismiss the commentary of an experienced journalist like Tim Pool and pointing out how some of his statement is wrong. Which can be done by referring to the time stamp within his video where the point was made and then proceed to explain why it is wrong. The replies being made are avoiding this. However related ideas are not without its' own merits sometimes.

LeafByNiggle does offer a valuable insight with his "but yes" towards this question, should journalism be regulated by a single third party rubber stamp of approval? However that is more deserving of being in the Christian Philosophy & Ethics as a thread of its' own.

All I'm hearing are non-answers stemming from the tree of ad hominem. Which is all fine and dandy if it were about two competing football teams.

 

[Tom 1]

We're all aware of the public distaste of politicians who are presented a challenging question and proceed to not answer it with the answer they give.

Instead of proceeding to dismiss the commentary of an experienced journalist like Tim Pool and pointing out how some of his statement is wrong. Which can be done by referring to the time stamp within his video where the point was made and then proceed to explain why it is wrong. The replies being made are avoiding this. However related ideas are not without its' own merits sometimes.

LeafByNiggle does offer a valuable insight with his "but yes" towards this question, should journalism be regulated by a single third party rubber stamp of approval? However that is more deserving of being in the Christian Philosophy & Ethics as a thread of its' own.

All I'm hearing are non-answers stemming from the tree of ad hominem. Which is all fine and dandy if it were about two competing football teams.

I still have no idea what your point is.

To simplify the point, do you believe that occasional errors made by all news media (of any kind) mean that all news you don’t like is fake? That appears to be what you were saying. If you believe that to be the case, what are you reasons, other than one in several million bits of data being occasionally wrong or not quite accurate?

 

[Justin-H.S.]

The play-by-play.

The chad defense attorney aka "Agent 47":
"You were literally about to shoot and kill Rittenhouse with your own gun, but he shot you first in self-defense?"

The star witness:
"That's correct"

The prosecution:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We're all aware of the public distaste of politicians who are presented a challenging question and proceed to not answer it with the answer they give.

Posters on this forum are not politicians being questioned by journalists.

Instead of proceeding to dismiss the commentary of an experienced journalist like Tim Pool...

Tim Pool may have experience, but he is currently posting as an individual, pandering to a specific right-wing fan base. He has no credibility outside of that fan base.

LeafByNiggle does offer a valuable insight with his "but yes" towards this question, should journalism be regulated by a single third party rubber stamp of approval?

...insight which you totally misrepresented in your selective omission of the important qualification that followed.

All I'm hearing are non-answers stemming from the tree of ad hominem.

My answer is that I will only debate Tim Pool if he shows up here. On the other hand, you have not mentioned a single one of Tim Pools points for our consideration. Your only admonition is to "watch the video".

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Memes continuing to roll in of the climax of the trial:

 

[iarwain]

Stay home and speak from there if need be, but don't go looking for trouble in Kenosha, which is exactly what he got by going there.

I don't think anyone is accusing Rittenhouse of good judgement. He's 17, and I think someone said he's bipolar? Not sure about that. Getting involved in a "mostly peaceful protest" isn't the point, he was there. The question is if he's guilty of murder or did he shoot in self defense.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I don't think anyone is accusing Rittenhouse of good judgement. He's 17, and I think someone said he's bipolar? Not sure about that. Getting involved in a "mostly peaceful protest" isn't the point, he was there. The question is if he's guilty of murder or did he shoot in self defense.

Rosenbaum is the confirmed bipolar. That was confirmed on day 3 of the trial, iirc.
No medical history of Rittenhouse has been disclosed.