He's a teenager. Teenagers are frequently full of contradictory ideas. Many conservatives rushed to declare him "our guy." He says one thing about BLM (which, btw, I've heard worse from teenagers) and the adults think the kid is the problem, when it's the hero-worshipping adults who (again) stepped in it. Imagine what would happen if he unfurled a rainbow flag - people would be turning about even harder.
It happened with Gen. Mattis and others, where conservatives wind up eating their support because they didn't exercise due diligence.
The kid defended himself legally. Good on him. The cause for sainthood ends there until further notice.
Its not calling it sainthood to praise heroic efforts to protect your community. That’s all the writer is saying. Just the behaviors he did do exemplify a decent respect for protecting his community and taking actions.
Its not commenting on the totallity of years of behavior instantly like matthis or bush.
I read the article, and all the hero-worship.
***You seem to be arguing against hero-worship. It’s such a strange term. When someone is a hero and others send praise their way, folks like you seem to wanna call it worship. That’s a bridge too far for me, kind of a chunk of bullshiite.
He’s a teenager.
***All the more reason why what he did and how he responded to it has been remarkable.
Teenagers are frequently full of contradictory ideas.
***So are adults. Like you, ferinstance.
Many conservatives rushed to declare him “our guy.”
***What does that even MEAN? You’re rushing your arguments to the edges of phrases that have little meaning like “hero worship” and “our guy”. It’s a form of obfuscation.
He says one thing about BLM (which, btw, I’ve heard worse from teenagers) and the adults think the kid is the problem,
***WHo is thinking that the “kid is the problem”? He supports the right of BLM to exercise their first amendment rights, he obviously supported the 2nd amendment right for himself to keep and bear arms. I don’t quite see what you’re getting at, this ultra-fine nuanced point you’re trying to make.
when it’s the hero-worshipping adults who (again) stepped in it.
***There you go again. You’re arguing against hero worshipping when there’s actually very little of that going on.
Imagine what would happen if he unfurled a rainbow flag -
***Then we would be saying the same stuff, that he had and exercised his right to protect himself. I am not following where you’re trying to go with this line of nonsense.
people would be turning about even harder.
***You claim people are “turning about”. Once again you’re pushing a phrase to its furthest extent, a form of obfuscation. There isn’t turnabout going on, it is merely criticism. Kyle is going to be very used to criticism soon enough.
It happened with Gen. Mattis and others, where conservatives wind up eating their support because they didn’t exercise due diligence.
***Uhh, the thing with Mattis was how he “turned about” all by himself. The guy was sensitive, could only deliver punches but couldn’t take them.
The kid defended himself legally. Good on him. The cause for sainthood ends there until further notice.
***Here we see your approach towards argumentation, which is that you’re exaggerating the viewpoint that you’re arguing against, a form of straw argumentation. Go ahead and point out anywhere that any FReeper has put forth a “cause for sainthood” for this kid Kyle.