They are randomly saying it, they are coming out of the blue and saying it in an attacking posture.
Commentors you are questioning, are only saying it defensively.
Commentors you are questioning would NEVER go out and ask for violence against her because of her gender, race, whatever, they are only REACTING to her in a defensive posture.
What is the best defense? An even better offense. Ask the F16 raptor.
So that's what makes these remarks better, because they are within the framework of self defense.
"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.
There is a huge distinction.
They are randomly saying it, they are coming out of the blue and saying it in an attacking posture.
Commentors you are questioning, are only saying it defensively.
Commentors you are questioning would NEVER go out and ask for violence against her because of her gender, race, whatever, they are only REACTING to her in a defensive posture.
What is the best defense? An even better offense. Ask the F16 raptor.
So that's what makes these remarks better, because they are within the framework of self defense.
Just my fly on the wall take.
"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
Okay chatgpt. Good argument.
It's a good argument no matter if I wrote it, chatgpt wrote it, or J K Rowling wrote it.
But the point is you agree it's a good argument, so 🤷♀️ glad you agree. 👍
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.