THe person that he claims pointed a gun at him before he shot testified in court that he was telling the truth, testified in court that he aimed his gun at rittenhouse first.

you dont go into a riot zone without a gun, if you do you are an idiot, period. If he had gone without a gun he would be dead.
Even if we assume your logic is valid, your logic says that he would be dead if he hadnt brought his gun because your logic applies to the other people with guns. Even if we assume your flawed logic as correct he would have been killed.
which is it, you cant have both your logic applying and your logic not applying.
Either bringing a gun into the riot zone means you actively went in premeditating killing someone or it doesn't. If it does then kyle would be dead if he went in without a gun. If it doesn't then kyle going in with a gun isnt suspect. Do you double down on your own logic or accept that your logic is flawed? both contradict your proposed end result.

again, if you go into a riot area, one that xvarnah said was described as a warzone by cops nearby, without a gun you are an idiot.
Also, "The whole thing isn't about him "defending himself", it's bringing a gun to a volatile situation with knowledge that either he or someone else was going to die. That's the intent, knowing he would have to use it eventually during the night. "
this is fallacious and assumes facts not in evidence. The point of bringing a gun is aggression deterrent. If he had gone in there cleaning graffiti and rendering aid to the wounded without a gun he would be dead right now. There is no reason to assume the people that acted aggressively towards him would not have done so if he had no way to defend himself.
One of them had a gun too.
By your logic, the fact the other dude had a gun shows intent to shoot and kill someone, you cannot apply that logic to rittenhouse without applying it to the other guy too, meaning rittenhouse would be dead unarmed with your logic

This kind of “paradoxical” riddle style question is rather fun.

Hell, there isn’t a small amount of people whose thoughts are so extreme as to say that that at the point it became an arson party burning down buildings and destroying cars that it became an act of domestic terrorism and warranted a direct lethal response. They tried to blow up a gas station for god sake

If you go into a riot area occupied by people claiming to be of a group that has caused previous riots in which people have died and you DONT bring a gun you are an idiot.
Also, as to the last thing you said, a VERY large amount of people the world around would say yes, buildings and cars are more valuable than the lives of people maliciously trying to destroy said property.
Ask the question in reverse. How many resources stolen from others is the Maximum acceptable loses to save a malicious strangers life. Would you give up your life savings and any chance at a safe or stable life for years to come, willfully accepting grief and suffering for years, potentially decades, to save someone actively trying to ruin you? Would you take from another and give away someone else’s life savings and life work, would you doom someone else to that same fate to save one person actively trying to cause grief and suffering upon others?

No legal fault on the part of rittenhouse, he was in public taking part in a constitutionally protected activity. From a legal perspective there is no fault as taking part in a constitutionally protected activity can be used only as reason to investigate an individual if there are other independant signs of a crime, however that does not allow it to be used as evidence of motive or intent, only as a "reasonable cause to investigate" to a police officer who sees it happening and it cannot lead to an arrest by itself. Usually this takes the form of filming public officials in the process of doing their job or photographing public locations, however the principle applies to all constitutionally protected activity and the state he was in does not regulate his carrying of a long arm so he was not acting criminally. He was then attacked therefor making his use of force legally justified. He did not goad or taunt his assailants, (fighting words doctrine) therefor he was not at fault.

with the look he has in his eyes? he's differently aiming at something he actively wants to destroy

By the logic that he went there with intent, that means literally every single person anywhere near the riot or within the riot after it initially started should be on trial for attempted murder and accessory to arson. The fact they were there and either went there after it started or stayed there after it started, shows intent the same way that this logic implicates rittenhouse

Other kinds of plants recognize their family when expanding their roots and only competitively expand their roots against other species or a different lineage of the same plant species, meaning effectively that they share resources with their direct family members.

I find the origin of his antisemitic beliefs fascinating because there are so many points in his life that are thought to be potential origin points. There are some personal claims from when he was a younger man by people that knew him that he was like that already but they aren't super heavy on proof of authenticity. There's the fact the nationalist socialist party was blaming them for the lose of world war 1, claiming they refused to support the war effort and claiming that was the sole reason for them losing the war, mixed with adolf coming back from war to a county that did not appreciate him or his fallen friends. Then there's the fact that antisemitic belief was just a moderately common ideal in the area he grew up. And yet, since it happened so long ago in a time with far less general records and very few living people to ask about it now, we can't conclusively say when he started agreeing with it all.

He really did “help” shape hitler into the man he was, the reason hitler had ideals of a powerful unified Germanic state was because his father was a proud Austrian patriot who held office.

That isn’t super a matter of political correctness, it’s just normal factual correctness. The vast majority of people that rape children do so because it’s the easiest target for them to feel like they are strong and powerful. The kind of people that center their self worth in power because they are such shit people that no one validates their self worth as they don’t deserve respect. Looking into the research about this stuff is majorly depressing
Side note: I love that I got downvoted into oblivion because I intersected 2 bad places to be standing.
1. I said something that even a reasonable person would have an initial shock reaction to
2. Famousone said I made sense so anyone that hates him here is going to immediately hate whatever I said

I mean the same is true of a fetus, after a little over half the gestation time, humans gestate for 40 weeks, Premature babies can survive, as you say, in specific conditions, after about 24 weeks and have about a 50% survival rate that improves the closer to gestation finishing that they are premature.

The reason viruses aren’t alive is because they don’t reproduce, they trick a cell into making more of them, they aren’t reproducing themselves. It has nothing to do with relying on a host, by that logic tapeworms would be considered not alive because they quickly die when removed from their host and rely on hosts to go through their life cycle. An embryo does all of its own cellular replication, it just takes material from the mother.

Abortion is a complex issue primarily because there isn’t a clear cut answer to when it stops being morally wrong to prevent a birth.
There are, as with everything, 2 radical extreme stances
-
One being that the latest it’s ok is anytime before the actual birth which is generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
And the other extreme being that any form of artificially stopping sex from potentially making a baby such as pulling out, using birth control meds, or wearing a condom constituting stopping a persons from being born and immoral which is also generally rejected by most legitimate stances
-
This is one situation where the idea of “the truth likely lies somewhere inbetween” is both likely not fallacious and also fairly useless because there’s a wide range with a few “steps” in it like the heartbeat and when the pre-brain controls bodily functions. It’s not a simple thing, people within the same “camps” don’t even have general agreement as to their own sides opinions.

Regardless of the conversation this comment chain turned into I will say, after clicking the link general failure posted, it’s really damn annoying the platform people post massive argumentation and debates on has a character limit so small what would fit in 2 messages max here takes that dude 14 tweets to fit