Reply to Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s so weird but also so predictable that I. Two pages, DCUM goes from “there is no shred of evidence he was trans” to “who cares?”

The FBI has confirmed the partner of the killer is a male to female and they lived together romantically.  The partner is cooperating with the FBI and has confirmed this herself.

It certainly explains motive and settles the “actually he was a far right Nazi” question.  Can we move on now and accept he was radicalized to the left?

Not touching the furry thing other than that it explains the engravings somewhat.  Beyond that, I don’t think it is relevant.[/quote]

Having a transgender partner doesn’t explain motive. All it establishes is a personal detail about the killer’s life, not why the attack happened. A motive requires evidence that the act was driven by a specific belief system, grievance, or goal. Saying “he dated a trans woman, therefore he was radicalized to the left” is a logical leap — it’s like saying someone who dates a Christian must be motivated by Christianity. Until there’s actual proof, like writings, statements, or affiliations tying the violence to left-wing ideology, the partner’s gender identity doesn’t settle anything about motive.[/quote]
Missing the forest for the trees…we need gun control, mental health resources, empathy.[/quote]
Charlie Kirk didn’t think highly of empathy.[/quote]
Well Charlie would still be alive today playing with his babies if we focused more on the above. [/quote]

+1
You reap what you sow. And the "reaping" isn't always accompanied by good people or a socially palatable method. Reaping doesn't mean deserving, it means [b]natural, unsurprising consequence[/b], note the distinction. [/quote]

Not sure what country or time period you live in but in NO ONE’s law book, govt, or faith is it “natural and unsurprising” to unilaterally decide shoot someone down for what they have said in public forums. Or private ones.

That’s anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, not to mention unethical, illegal and immoral in most religions and societies.

— Note the distinction of your illogic and falsities. And zero understanding of due process.[/quote]

You are missing the point. I was not saying violence is legal, moral, or justified. I was saying it can be a predictable consequence. “Reaping what you sow” in that context means unsurprising outcome, not rightful punishment. Condemning the act as illegal or immoral is valid, but it does not address the claim of inevitability.[/quote]

Nope. Shooting down a politician or activist is not a “predictable consequence” nor “unsurprising outcome” nor “inevitability” of them being a vocal politician or activist.

Get professional help Pp. [/quote]

You are still mixing ideas. Predictable does not mean justified, inevitable, or deserved. It means that when someone repeatedly uses hateful or offensive rhetoric, it increases the chance that unstable or malicious people may lash out. That is an observation about likelihood, not a defense of the act. Calling something unsurprising is not the same as saying it is right, legal, or moral.

[/quote]

Golly with wrong perceptions and lame deflections like that, what do you tell domestic abusers when they lash out? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics