Well the last violent crime he committed was in 2007 (aggrevated robbery) for which he got out at 2013 and seems like he managed to turn his life around by working two jobs but then probably succumbed to poverty after he lost them both in 2020 COVID pandemic. All these pretty understandable given that Lloyd had a pretty poor childhood, if you want to find the average in him. So a description of the type “violent criminal” looks more like a MAGA rhetoric at this point rather than a refined understanding of the situation.
Charlie Kirk, on the other hand, was coming from an extremely privileged background and had every reason to be a decent person but yet somehow managed to turn himself into a turd of collosal magnitude. So yeah “even more innocent” doesn’t begin to explain the difference.
Eh, the point still stands, that is the level of absolue shittyness we are talking about. If we account for the backgrounds these people come from it makes the gap even wider.
Have you seen me opposing the statement that he has committed violent crimes in his past or that it isn’t the average man behaviour? I have even given more context on the nature of the crime. “Yes but …” exactly means even under this context the statement still holds true. If I thought that was not the case I would oppose your statement with facts rather than update mine. So I think it might be you who is not understanding the statement.
I don’t think you have an ulterior motive but focusing on one superficial aspect of the statement and using reductive descriptions you are missing the depth of what you have gotten into. It feels like I am saying “Like Pluto, Neptune is quite far from Mars” and you are saying “Yes but Pluto isn’t a planet and is also farther”.
You think your average guy is a convicted felon with meth and fent addiction?
Literally yes
I would trust my Floyd with kids before I trusted Kirk.
Okay? I don’t see what that’s got to do with someone thinking an average American is both a violent criminal and drug addict.
Well the last violent crime he committed was in 2007 (aggrevated robbery) for which he got out at 2013 and seems like he managed to turn his life around by working two jobs but then probably succumbed to poverty after he lost them both in 2020 COVID pandemic. All these pretty understandable given that Lloyd had a pretty poor childhood, if you want to find the average in him. So a description of the type “violent criminal” looks more like a MAGA rhetoric at this point rather than a refined understanding of the situation.
Charlie Kirk, on the other hand, was coming from an extremely privileged background and had every reason to be a decent person but yet somehow managed to turn himself into a turd of collosal magnitude. So yeah “even more innocent” doesn’t begin to explain the difference.
In this society, yes.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13524-017-0611-1
Best source I’ve found so far. Doesn’t sound like your average person is a felon.
What percentage of felons are drug addicts is another factor so even less of the population fit this twisted view of an average man.
The average man in America isn’t black but there is nothing abnormal about a man being black.
True, though it seems to me that holding someone at gunpoint during a home invasion is abnormal behaviour and not the behaviour of an average man.
Eh, the point still stands, that is the level of absolue shittyness we are talking about. If we account for the backgrounds these people come from it makes the gap even wider.
I’ve not made any comparison with Kirk.
Simply pointing out that your average man does not have a history as a violent criminal and drug addict.
yes and I have pointed out the conclusion still holds true
What don’t you get about my statement that the average man isn’t a drug addict with a conviction for violent crime?
There’s no ulterior motive to that statement of fact. It’s just a fact. Admitting it won’t hurt you.
Have you seen me opposing the statement that he has committed violent crimes in his past or that it isn’t the average man behaviour? I have even given more context on the nature of the crime. “Yes but …” exactly means even under this context the statement still holds true. If I thought that was not the case I would oppose your statement with facts rather than update mine. So I think it might be you who is not understanding the statement.
I don’t think you have an ulterior motive but focusing on one superficial aspect of the statement and using reductive descriptions you are missing the depth of what you have gotten into. It feels like I am saying “Like Pluto, Neptune is quite far from Mars” and you are saying “Yes but Pluto isn’t a planet and is also farther”.
Average guy?
Have you not heard of the president and his friends?