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][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]

In a country where uncivilized politicians enact wil wild West style gun laws, shooting down a politician is a predictable consequence , indeed. Facts don't care about your fragile and hypocritical feelings .[/quote]

Speaking of facts, what you cited - shooting down a politician - is indeed extremely rare in America and most countries.

Plus Charlie Kirk was quite civilized when he spoke. That was his model- or else it wouldn’t work, watch the shows.

Thanks for playing, better luck next time! [/quote]

In one episode of his podcast, Kirk suggested that children should be forced to watch Trump’s political opponents beheaded live on television. With sponsorship by Coca-Cola.

That doesn’t sound very civilized.[/quote]

Context and link? [/quote]

Look it up yourself. If you don't find the poster credible in context that is your problem.[/quote]
Dude, who would? You just wrote 25-30 words.

How dumb do you think people are? [/quote]

Information has been provided. Up to you what you do with it.[/quote]

Correct, after multiple posters called out your petty nonresponses, you finally posted a transcript link.

We’ll watch it full in due course and revert back with our thoughts.[/quote]

No, the request for sources is a petty rhetorical technique to dismiss the poster. And no, you are not going to watch the video because that was never the point.

What you might do is find an excuse to dismiss it outright, to further dismiss the credibility of the poster. [/quote]

Excuse me? Who wouldn’t want to look at the source material and think for themselves on the matter?

Why would anyone just read a stranger’s opinion tweet and run with it?

Plus half of the country is illiterate. [/quote]

Funny how nobody’s commented on what CK said, in his own words, on the transcript.  They’re just attacking the messenger.[/quote]

Didn’t they say they’d read it over and revert back? Maybe they have a life or are having sex in a Saturday night. Unlike us. [/quote]
Sex and guns are so overrated.[/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