• Hacksaw
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The headline is “crowd raises money to defend innocent man accused of crimes”.

    I don’t know where you’re getting that we’re celebrating murder. You won’t even accept that you’re jumping to conclusions. You’ve got a lot of assumptions built into that head of yours sir.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Again, this is plainly dishonest, but I’ll read it as repressed guilt. After all, you’re (presumably) a human being with a moral compass.

      • Hacksaw
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Sure, anyone who disagrees with you is evil or dishonest. That’s how you know that YOU’RE the only one engaging in honest open discussion.

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 hours ago

          But I don’t say you’re evil, I say you are dishonest. You just want to defend an “innocent man accused of crimes”, but this particular man and this particular crime - pure coincidence! Your dishonesty is plain as day. You want to defend a murderer because you think he was right to murder, you think that his unarmed victim deserved to expire in a pool of his own blood on the sidewalk. At least have the courage of your convictions.

          • Hacksaw
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            I don’t see you standing up for all murder victims. You’re ONLY here in this thread defending this specific murder victim. Your dishonesty is plain as day. It’s clear that you think the rich should not face the social consequences of their actions. You think that as long as someone follows the law they should be able to harm as many people as they want as long as they create shareholder value. The fact that this is the murder victim you’re defending is pure coincidence! You act like you just want everyone around you to have “honest discussions” but you hide your own convictions. At least have the courage of your convictions.

            • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              8 hours ago

              My convictions are easy to express: I’m against first-degree murder. It really is that simple. And you are not.

              To be clear, I’m also against judicial killing (capital punishment) in all circumstances. For exactly the same reason: it is never right to kill a defenseless person who poses no immediate threat to you. End of story. This is about as watertight a morality as you could ask for.

              This is also roughly the teaching of the Catholic church. But I’m not a Catholic, nor even a pacifist.

              • Hacksaw
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                I’m looking forward to your “honest debate” in every thread related to murder and capital punishment, but I know this is the only victim you’ll be defending in the near future. While you accuse others of dishonesty, it’s classic projection of your own moral fallings.

                When posters say their convictions are simple “innocent until proven guilty and having the right to competent defense” they’re dishonest because “this is the only thread we’re in, what a coincidence /s”. Why the same logic doesn’t apply to you is a mystery.

                Also this wasn’t first degree murder in New York, that is reserved for the premeditated murder of specific classes of people such as law enforcement. If you’re going to have these “clear and easy to express convictions” at least be accurate and clear about it.

                I had you tagged as “conservative pseudointellectual” from previous interactions and it’s been accurate EVERY TIME I run into you. You consistently defend capitalism and conservatism, and now Catholicism for some reason? Against the interestes of the population in general.

                • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  This is all over the place. Clearly this fact is driving you to distraction but, yes, my principles are very simple and this debate is very simple. I am against murder, and apparently you are not. End of story.

                  • Hacksaw
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Ah, my apologies. I’ll make sure to stick to one argument at a time so that you can understand.

                    You’re a troll. You think your opinions are “enlightened” or “rational” but they’re not. What you excel at is upsetting people by being abrasive. Look at your comment history and the downvotes you get on nearly every subject. When you speak, you do so in a way that’s upsetting to people. It’s not WHAT you say, but rather HOW you say it that creates this reaction. You’re just a troll and you’ve somehow convinced yourself that the downvotes are proof that you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

                    Upsetting your fellow humans is not the mark of a good person, nor is it the mark of an intelligent one.

                    The rare time you use your intelligence to form a coherent empathetic argument you get hundreds of people supporting you. Maybe try to build off that instead of feeling proud of your abrasive countenance.