Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Emily Lake]

I didn't. That was my example, not yours. An analogy. The point is that it is wrong to deprive any entire social class of rights based on how scared you feel about the crimes some of them have been accused of, even if some members of that class are genuinely guilty of the crimes that scare you. Is that more clear?

Your point is errant and related to nothing outside or your imagination. I don't want to deprive anyone of their rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

...

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

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

I guess B20 ...

...

I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.

...

Good lord, what a firehose of stupid posts. The garbage you guys are saying about me, you have no right to believe on such evidence as is before you*. Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place -- but seriously, you've gone off the deep end. Teaching all of you how to stop relying on invalid inference procedures is going to be a problem -- it looks to be a lifetime of work and I don't have that kind of time -- I'm already an old man. But we might as well get started, and just see how far we can get before my clock runs out. Who wants to go first?

(* The Ethics of Belief, Clifford, https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf )

Nice bunch of personal invectives.

[Insert emoji of Spock raising an eyebrow] Do you object to personal invectives? Would you like me to post links to a selection of yours against me?

Your lofty opinion of yourself is belied by a stunning inability to address the points that have been laid out.

"Inability"? That's premature -- it was only in your present post that you volunteered to go first. What did you have in mind -- was I supposed to reply to firehose with firehose, or was I supposed to answer your charges ahead of everyone else's because you're special, or was I supposed to hop in my DeLorean and hit 88 mph?

Your clock could tick on forever at this rate and you’d still just be an old redneck ranting semi- coherently about the intellectual shortcomings of anyone who isn’t a lockstep conservotard. I thought you could do better, and that’s on me.

The heck are you talking about? Lockstep conservotards have just as severe intellectual shortcomings as their mirror images on the left.

Who wants to go first?
I’ll go first. Show me the golden wisdom of blaming your shortcomings on libtards!

Quote me ever blaming anything on libtards. If you mean I blame something on you guys, that really isn't on point -- not a one of you shows any sign of being liberal.

Seriously, you are comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary.

smh

Had to look that up. You appear to mean you're shaking your head at me, but you should be shaking it at folks like Jarhyn. Seriously, they imagine I'm comparing trans people to Typhoid Mary. Never happened. They, and you apparently, can't tell the difference between a comparison and a counterexample. I was proving by counterexample that Don had relied on an invalid inference procedure. I'm trying to teach you guys to stop relying on those; so far all you're doing in response is doubling down on them.

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

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!!

I guess you haven't stopped beating your wife. You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely, that Kirk evinced hate for trans people. Of course Robinson believed he did. It isn't any leap of faith to believe that a guy in a relationship with a trans person killed someone he thinks evinces hate for trans people, leaving an apologetic note for his trans partner. The conjecture that these things could be related is certainly warranted -- and nowhere did I suggest otherwise.

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.

You really need to cut back on the snark at me for words you put in my mouth. Of course we know he's not a boilerplate liberal gunslinger or a Hillary-loving lib’rul murderer. "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship." If you're for censorship then you're not a liberal.

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?

What you're missing is that you really are full of baseless assumptions about people.

An unstable man immersed in gun culture and online extremism did not need a settled definition of "hate" to justify violence

I don’t think B20 would disagree, except maybe about what “culture” he was immersed in. He certainly goes off though, if it is implied that Chuckie in any way brought it on himself by hating or threatening trans people.

By "goes off", you mean "points out lack of evidence"? Chuckie brought risk of assassination on himself in any number of ways, and threatening trans people appears to have been one of them. But Robinson didn't mention threat. He mentioned hate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What's with the eyerolls? Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

Project 2025 is being implemented with gusto by that creep Russell Vought who is the real power behind the stupid evil Trump. There is no way that stupid Trump could think up all of the thousands of his executive orders. Vought is pulling all the strings. And Trump loves it. The destruction of a Nation.

Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again, framing them as the absolute worst possible person... that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time.

Then stop doing it.

Demonstrate where I've done so.

To the extent that the poster you were responding to did so, if you really stretch words, you've done the same thing repeatedly including in the post I responded to. So it was already demonstrated.

Let's go over the receipts:

1. "Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again..." -- this is you saying over and over again that your opponents are bad people because they don't both sides Nazis or whatever your latest thing is--to include this last post I responded to where you implied the poster was acting like an inquisitionist, jihadist or authoritarian: CHECK.
2. "framing them as the absolute worst possible person..." -- that's what you are doing by calling them an inquisitionist, jihadist, or authoritarian. INSTEAD, let's look logically here. A person who does this could simply be correct and that is fairly broad. A specific example, sure: the Allied Armies of WW2 or any person in leadership could say over and over that the Nazis were the worst people or that Hitler was the worst or some victims of pogroms might say Stalin was the worst kind of person...and this would not be unreasonable and they could easily be correct, BUT here you specifically only point to the worst possible person. Ergo, CHECK.
3. "that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time..." But it's your tactic here. You just did it in this phrasing, you've used the tactic of comparing the poster to inquisitionists, jihadists, and authoritarians. CHECK.

Now instead of using ad hom, you could have responded to the substance of the Project 2025 stuff and noted that Trump is indeed a big fat liar, that he is indeed implementing unconstitutional measures, and we are headed toward fascism. OR you could have argued with substance why any of those things are not true. But you did not.

 

[scombrid]

I just see a lot of distraction from the fact that Kirk fronted for people that like how Alan Turing was “dealt with”. It is hard for me to take arguments in good faith when it is a steady deviation from the facts of Turning Point USA policy positions and advocacy.

 

[Politesse]

The guy literally ran a whole platform just to doxx and intimidate professors and school boards he disliked - nearly all them queer, female, or black, a coincidence I'm sure - and we're supposed to pretend he wasn't anti-democratic, and moreover that he was pro- free speech. Because he did debates as well, and that proves he liked dialogue. That he was a pacifist, because he only intimated too many times to count that violence solves problems. It's fucking absurd. I hope none of these Kirk apologists want me to take them seriously on any other topic.

 

[Elixir]

You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely, that Kirk evinced hate for trans people

You have to narrow the definition of hate to microscopic proportions to make that claim.
I do suppose Jeffrey Dahmer never evinced hate for his victims, either. In fact he loved them, every bite, right?

Robinson didn't mention threat. He mentioned hate.

Yeah. Like I said (conjectured), it was probably personal rather than political.
But I’m sure poor Chuckie would have blessed all the attempts to leverage his death to further the success of the fascist junta. The hero didn’t die in vain.

 

[Elixir]

It is hard for me to take arguments in good faith when it is a steady deviation from the facts of Turning Point USA policy

I assume you meant derivation?