Rhode Island professor finds “nothing wrong” with murdering Trump supporters from a “moral perspective”

Rhode Island professor finds “nothing wrong” with murdering Trump supporters from a “moral perspective”

This post was originally published on this site

Subscribe, Like And Share!

Image: Rhode Island professor finds “nothing wrong” with murdering Trump supporters from a “moral perspective”

(Natural News) In a blog post he wrote, University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the killing of Trump supporter Aaron Danielson by Antifa Michael Reinoehl. Danielson was murdered in August amid conflicts between Black Lives Matter protesters and Trump supporters in Portland. Later, Reinoehl was killed by U.S. Marshals when they attempted to serve him with an arrest warrant days after he shot Danielson.

In the blog post, Loomis claimed law enforcement officers were rife with fascists “from stem to stem” and openly worked with other pro-Trump elements in Portland and Kenosha, Wis. A reader challenged him that Reinoehl “shot and killed a guy,” to which the professor replied: “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.”

Professor Loomis doubled down in his defense of Danielson’s murder, saying that violence is not always a bad idea – and was even necessary – in certain instances. He believed that violence against political enemies was a central part of fascist ideology, therefore the ideological opposite was to avoid violence unless the specific context of a situation called for it.

However, Danielson was not the one who resorted to violence. Video footage shows that he was spotted by a protester, which served as the signal for Reinoehl to fire two shots.

Loomis tweets and replies to questions based on feelings, not facts

Outside the blog, Loomis also made headlines on Twitter. He retweeted a statement by MSNBC host Chris Hayes, which called President Donald Trump “objectively pro-COVID”, adding that Republicans stopped caring about the coronavirus after they figured out how it affected poor people and people of color.

Kara Zupkus of the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) and editor of the group’s official publication, The New Guard, reposted professor Loomis’ tweets. He then resorted to attacking Zupkus and the organization she belongs to – calling her a “fascist,” disparaging YAF as “horribly disgusting” and accusing the group’s founder William F. Buckley with having a “diseased racist brain.”

The professor defended his claim of Republicans turning a blind eye on the coronavirus’ effect on minorities, calling his detractors “fascists” and challenging them to “go after him” if they wanted more material to use against him.

Loomis’ responses clearly fall under ad hominem fallacies. The Texas State University’s philosophy department defines ‘ad hominem fallacies’ as statements that attack the person presenting an argument instead of the argument itself. Furthermore, ad hominem fallacies also target a person’s membership in a group or institution.

Left-leaning academia deserves credit for the crazy ideas of Loomis and others

Liberalism is rife in most U.S. universities, not just the University of Rhode Island. Loomis’ defense of Aaron Danielson’s murder just because of different political beliefs falls in line with other ideas from the halls of left-leaning educational institutions.

Four universities – University of California-San Diego, Syracuse University, University of Michigan and Loyola University of Maryland – have stopped using the term “alumni” to refer to their graduates in favor of the supposedly inclusive and politically correct “alumnx.” However, the original word “alumni” is actually gender-neutral to begin with as it refers to graduates regardless of their gender.

Elgin Community College faculty member Mae Hicks Jones has called for scrapping figures of speech for “racist microaggressions.” She remarked that the term “low-hanging fruit” was reminiscent of lynching, while the term “grandfathering in” served as a reminder of the disenfranchisement of black voters in the South before the Civil Rights era.

Meanwhile, Harvard University post-graduate student Kareem Carr explained on Twitter that the correct answer to 2+2 is five and not four. When asked why, he explained that statements such as “2+2=4” are but generalizations of a larger concept. Carr’s explanation was dismissed by a Twitter user, saying that leftists are trying to deconstruct the objectively correct concept of 2+2=4 to give it a new meaning.

Any sane individual who dares “criticize” these ideas straight out of Bizarro World ought to be prepared for ad hominem attacks! Find more news about the insane ideas formulated by Loomis and other leftists in academia at CampusInsanity.com.

Sources include:

CampusReform.org

CBSNews.com

LawyersGunsMoneyBlog.com

Twitter.com

TXState.edu

WritingExplained.org


Subscribe, Like And Share!

Leave a Reply