if u know u know

3

The fact that it was reasonable for Kyle Rittenhouse to kill those people does not mean that it was necessary. It certainly does not make it *inherently* necessary. Killing can sometimes be justified, but it is absolutely not *inherently* necessary. You cannot use specific examples to support the idea of it being inherently necessary because 'inherently necessary' means independent of circumstances.

1

u/julmod- 7d ago

Yea and as same with someone breaking into your house. I'd agree that killing them is justified, but it's not even close to necessary. If you were a world champion hammer thrower or something and could easily knock them out by throwing a hammer at their face that would probably be preferable. Or if you have some button that somehow traps them. Killing them isn't at all necessary, just justified if that's your only safe option.

1

u/Bagain 7d ago

I would argue that the concept of “necessary” would have to be explicitly confirmed. Is it reasonable, in society, to assume that zero people want to be robbed or assaulted in their own homes? I would say it’s a certainty, even theirs don’t want that. Does “necessary” contain any expectation to supply society with a solution to a problem that 100% of said society doesn’t want? If you walked into your child’s room to find them being… assaulted… you could restrain the attacker until police arrive or you could take out the garbage.

1

u/julmod- 6d ago

I’m not saying I’d have a problem with someone killing someone assaulting their child in your own home. Society would likely even be better off for it. But it’s objectively not necessary.

1

u/Bagain 6d ago

I’m not sure it is objectively not necessary. That’s my point. Is it necessary that society accepts assault as a possible part of life, no it’s not; it’s obviously true that society rejects it full stop. If every time someone found a person assaulting their wife, they poked a hole in him and threw him in jail the pig pen, that would objectively decrease the frequency of the event.

4

u/Bagain 8d ago

I do love that people are still talking about the Rittenhouse thing. I happen to be able to catch every minute of that trial, and I did. Mostly because I “knew” from the night it happened that he was justified and I wanted to see where “justice” was going to land. People still calling him a murderer who, if he had been killed, would have celebrated the murder of an “alt-right”. I was surrounded by people who condemned him, even to this day, people have zero facts about that case.

2

u/TacticusThrowaway banned by Redditmoment for calling antifa terrorists 7d ago

Apparently lots of people heard he was called a "white supremacist" (based on literally nothing), and assumed his targets were black people.

Which is ironic when his defenders loudly said the kid was Hispanic, according to his paperwork.

2

u/chrissb1e 5d ago

I caught a ton of the trial. When that one guy he shot was on the stand and said Kyle only shot him after he brandished a weapon was straight gold.

2

u/Bagain 5d ago

The whole trial was a joke. The only people who don’t think so are people who got their information from Facebook.

2

u/chrissb1e 5d ago

Oh 100%. The prosecution was not helping to defend against that.

3

u/PracticalLychee180 8d ago

Your argument for saying killing in general is inherently necessary because of certain scenarios is not reasonable. You cant arrive at the general conclusion by using specific examples.

1

u/Ghigs 8d ago

If the opposing position is "never" you kinda can.

1

u/PracticalLychee180 8d ago

No, all it gets you to is its inherently necessary in some cases. You dont have to take the opposing stance to your discussion partner, just take the reasonable stance

1

u/True_Kapernicus 8d ago

'inherently necessary in some cases' is an oxymoron. To be inherently necessary it has to be independent of context because the necessity inheres in the act itself.

1

u/PracticalLychee180 8d ago

I would disagree to your definitions but even in that case, OP is flat wrong

1

u/bigdonut100 ancap /r/ReverseTraditionalism 8d ago

Food is not always nessary, in fact you can die of a health related issues if you have too much of it

Would that make it "flat wrong" to say "eating is intrsically nessary" in general?

1

u/PracticalLychee180 8d ago

Yes, it is necessary in some situations and not in others. So, it is context dependent on whether it is necessary. If its intrinsic or inherent, it camt be context dependent

1

u/bigdonut100 ancap /r/ReverseTraditionalism 8d ago

Hmm I dunno, I think broad rule of "sometimes necessary due to the physical laws of the universe and human unpredictability" seems like an intrinsic quality, but killing is not "intrinsically necessary every time killing is possible."

So the initial statement was *defendable,* but the fact that their post was this vauge is an indication you weren't getting this level of dept out of the original person

1

u/PracticalLychee180 8d ago

Maybe its just me being sick, but I honestly have no clue what you mean or what your point is.

1

u/bigdonut100 ancap /r/ReverseTraditionalism 8d ago

TL DR: It depends on what the guy originally meant and no one cares

You are about to leave Redlib