• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

I would tend to think there was a political angle to this. You don't shoot someone over a live video feed unless you want others to see it, you'd wait until they are getting in their car, yeah?
 
Politesse said:
you'd wait until they are getting in their car, yeah?
Click to expand...
You don’t know where the car is or when he is likely to be getting in it, let alone where to locate oneself for a clear shot.
The location of center stage, the point from which there was a line of fire, the time at which Kirk was going to be there - these were all factors known well in advance.
 
Politesse said:
I would tend to think there was a political angle to this. You don't shoot someone over a live video feed unless you want others to see it, you'd wait until they are getting in their car, yeah?
Click to expand...
We aren't talking about a trained assassin. We are talking about someone that had an intention and did so in a manner that required as little risk as possible. So at the area where Kirk was supposed to be for a while is a logical place for the irrational and immoral act.
 
Charlie Kirk deliberately made hateful statements. Whether he truly had hate in his heart is undetermined matter that is undeterminable without his admission.

Making hateful statements is evidence of hate but it is not conclusive. But those statements make a reasonable basis that racial hate or bigotry was part of Mr Kirk’s world view.
 
laughing dog said:
Charlie Kirk deliberately made hateful statements. Whether he truly had hate in his heart is undetermined matter that is undeterminable without his admission.
Click to expand...
He had a golden retriever that was apparently fond of him.
I feel sorry for the dog.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Bomb#20 said:
That makes it sound like Kirk thought gender ideology is a cult and trans people are its victims.
Click to expand...

Kirk did not simply call gender ideology a "cult." He repeatedly described transgender people themselves as mentally ill, dangerous, and in need of institutionalization, advocating a return to the practices of the 1950s and 60s.
Click to expand...
And? Do you think the people who thought Typhoid Mary was ill, dangerous, and in need of institutionalization thought so because they hated her?

Click to expand...
Try again dipstick. Typhoid Mary was infecting OTHERS. Transgendered people hurt NO ONE.
 
Emily Lake said:
bilby said:
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court interprets it as saying.
Click to expand...
Are you really intending to say that if the SC woke up tomorrow and said that the first amendment of the constitution says that left-handed people can be purchased as livestock and eaten for food, you think that would actually work, and we'd all just be stuck selling our left-handed cousins and having "Lefty Lou Lasagne"?
Click to expand...
It would have to be preceded with several years at least, of right wing vilification.
If they can do it to a nonexistent group like Antifa, why not those sinister, evil lefties?

Anything the SCOTUS says, goes. Period.
We TRUST them not to put us on the menu. But if they do, our ONLY recourse would be an uprising. What did you think, Emily? The Amazing Hulk or Superman would save us?
 
Playball40 said:
Try again dipstick. Typhoid Mary was infecting OTHERS. Transgendered people hurt NO ONE.
Click to expand...

This is quite the rub. Kirk is very much like Typhoid Mary. He was busy infecting people with with his transphobia and a bunch of other stuff. Like Mary, he thought himself entitled to do it.
I see Robinson as more resembling a family member protecting his loved ones from typhoid the only way he knew how.
Tom

ETA ~Its a weak analogy. But I didn't bring Typhoid Mary into the discussion.~
 
Last edited:
Swammerdami said:
And by the way, Emily, your views on the Second Amendment are atrocious. Please stop blaming America's stupidities on the Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...
WTF are you on about? Background checks, licensing, registration, and mandatory training as a requirement for gun ownership is something you consider atrocious?
 
Politesse said:
This kind of equivocation isn't helping anything. No one compares "everyone" to Nazis. People who know history compare those who espouse Nazi ideology to Nazis. Concepts like scientific racism, eugenics, anti-socialism, Aryan supremacy, and radical nationalism aren't inventions of "the left".
Click to expand...
Which of those concepts did Kirk advocate?

I'll give you anti-socialism, perhaps. But the rest seems to be reaching a bit far. You don't have to like the guy, hell you can despise every one of his views as far as I'm concerned. But I'm so incredibly fucking tired of progressives sticking labels on people they don't like as if just calling someone a bigot actually makes it true. Use your damned brain and make a cogent argument once in a while, sheesh.
 
Jarhyn said:
Bomb#20 said:
Elixir said:
Bomb#20 said:
Do you think the people who thought Typhoid Mary was ill, dangerous, and in need of institutionalization thought so because they hated her?
Click to expand...
We all could tell how much Charlie absolutely adored trans folk. <rest of drivel snipped>
Click to expand...
:rolleyes2: What the heck is your problem? The people who thought Typhoid Mary was ill, dangerous, and in need of institutionalization, but didn't hate her, didn't adore her either, and you damn well know it!!! So why the bejesus are you painting my pointing out the lack of evidence for Kirk hating trans folk as meaning I'm implying he adored them? I don't think you're deliberately strawmanning me -- you are really giving off a hardware-problem vibe. Are you just physiologically incapable of following an argument? So any time you see one that doesn't lead where you expect you just force-fit it onto some completely different argument for some completely unrelated contention and delude yourself that it's what you read?
Click to expand...
Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

That is sick. In fact, your whole post is fucking sick.

We don't need to straw-man you.

You have successfully over the course of a decade transmitted that this is who you are. You are consistent in this way.

I kind of wish we could actually record the real time experiences and emotions and sensations of the suffering that people are going to be experiencing over the next few years so that we can wire people like you down into that machine to have it replayed into your own brains without harming you any other way just so that you can grow some goddamn fucking empathy.
Click to expand...
What, like the empathy that you show to women who don't want to see dicks in our changing rooms and spas?
 
Elixir said:
Jarhyn said:
Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.
Click to expand...
smh
Jarhyn said:
That is sick. In fact, your whole post is fucking sick.
Click to expand...
I guess B20 thinks I have made a giant unwarranted leap of faith, to believe that a guy in a relationship with a trans person killed someone who evinces hate for trans people, leaving an apologetic note for his trans partner … and making the unwarranted conjecture that these things could be related.
SHEESH!!

But it’s not a leap of faith for him to imply that since we don’t know that he’s not a boilerplate liberal gunslinger, (common as such folk are) he might well have been a Hillary-loving lib’rul murderer.

Ooookay, dude.

I think I must be missing something; B20 isn’t usually so reactionary.

Something SURELY unrelated, but to feed his confirmation bias, the MI shooter’s lifted pickup truck flying its dual ‘Murkin flags, - tha guy was probably another lib.
But we wouldn’t want to jump to conclusions, right?
Click to expand...
JFC, did you guys smoke too much?

Bomb didn't compare transgender people to typhoid mary, get your damned brains checked. Seriously, this is not difficult.

Take as a premise that Kirk genuinely believed that transgender people are mentally ill, and that they represent a social danger. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT YOU NUMBSKULLS - JUST TAKE IT AS THE PREMISE FOR THE ARGUMENT

From there, believing that mentally ill people who represent a social danger should be institutionalized is not hatred. It's protection for them and for everyone else. It's just like institutionalizing a paranoid schizophrenic who can't be managed. There's no hatred involved.

And again - you don't have to agree with the sentiment to understand the viewpoint. In fact, understanding the viewpoint and where it's coming from is the only way you can possibly change anyone's mind. Otherwise all you're left with is your own personal pogrom killing heretics.

Goddamn, I kind of feel like several of you desperately want a civil war.
 
Emily Lake said:
Politesse said:
This kind of equivocation isn't helping anything. No one compares "everyone" to Nazis. People who know history compare those who espouse Nazi ideology to Nazis. Concepts like scientific racism, eugenics, anti-socialism, Aryan supremacy, and radical nationalism aren't inventions of "the left".
Click to expand...
Which of those concepts did Kirk advocate?

I'll give you anti-socialism, perhaps. But the rest seems to be reaching a bit far. You don't have to like the guy, hell you can despise every one of his views as far as I'm concerned. But I'm so incredibly fucking tired of progressives sticking labels on people they don't like as if just calling someone a bigot actually makes it true. Use your damned brain and make a cogent argument once in a while.
Click to expand...
I mean, you could stand to do a bit of research of your own. What are you even talking about? Not the real Charlie Kirk, that's certain. Though I imagine you would insist that any and all quotations in which Kirk advocated for race essentialism, European exceptionalism and so forth are all just liberal lies or something? I mean yes, I agree that his ideology "stretched too far" but he's the guy who stretched it. Would I call him a Nazi personally? No. There are intentional Nazi revivalists out there, and giving their label to others confuses things. But it's not like the comparison comes out of nowhere.

"Make a cogent argument"? I've filled the last few pages of evidence of exactly what kind of a man Kirk was, and what he advocated for and against. You present no evidence for your own views whatsoever, but accuse me of lacking a cogent argument? Honestly!

Words mean things. It's not my job to run disingenuous PR for a dead man, who wouldn't even want or appreciate my help were he alive. Nor yours. You claim to be a Democrat and a liberal, yes? You are defending the honor of someone who would have happily seen you committed or jailed, for what reason I cannot imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom