4 ms·

If a person espoused and encouraged assassination as a means to achieve his political or philosophical goals then it's difficult to see how he could be surprise

by avazhi 1y ago

If a person espoused and encouraged assassination as a means to achieve his political or philosophical goals then it's difficult to see how he could be surprised if he himself were to be assassinated or affected by violence. In a sense that would just be logical cause and effect. But to my knowledge Kirk never did and 'live by the sword, die by the sword' wouldn't apply here. In fact I can't think of an instance in recent history where this would have applied - the logical implications inherent in such rhetoric are obvious to most people immediately. Even the Russians as a general rule don't murder their exiled former rulers - the new Czar figures he could be next, and wouldn't want to set a precedent.

PenguinCoder 1y ago
[flagged]
- avazhi 1y ago
  If you can't tell the difference between the quote you've attributed to him, on the one hand, and actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other, then I don't know what to tell you other than that they are categorically different statements. The statement "I think a few people dying in car accidents is a valid price to pay for being able to travel quickly in cars between point A and B" very obviously is not the same thing as the statement "I encourage people to kill themselves in their cars while driving" or "I am glad people routinely die in car crashes". It's expressing the balancing of two things, endorsing State A over State B (Guns vs No Guns) without endorsing violence itself; seen another way, it's endorsing A over B without necessarily saying A is the ultimate ideal - it's just that A is in that person's opinion preferable to B. Personally I think the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risks and indeed I'd say the benefits of being vaccinated are worth the harms they may cause, even to myself; surely it's obvious to you that I can extol vaccine benefits over their known harms while simultaneously hoping that nobody is in fact harmed by them, even thought I know some subset of the population will be (by myocarditis, for example). You've conflated the expression of a preference for active malice. Apathy or acceptance of something is passive; incitement and encouragement of something is active. Surely that's obvious. As far as I know he never advocated murder through assassination or targeted extrajudicial killing. His views on guns and indeed the fact he was speaking about gun violence when he was shot may qualify as ironic, but his philosophical views on the availability of guns to the public were not tantamount to actively encouraging violence.
  - PenguinCoder 1y ago
    > actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other Quit putting words in my mouth. I am not encouraging violence or assassination of political differences. I merely said, his death is quite literally _live by the sword, die by the sword_. That's it. He advocated for freedom of firearms, and died by one. Nothing further to it to read into. This is not malice or extolling violence. Here's a couple of sources of the quote I attribute to him, since you don't believe me or are willfully, obtusely, ignoring what he said. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-qu...
    - avazhi 1y ago
      You've got some issues with reading comprehension. I was (quite obviously) not referring to you there - I was pointing out that those are two different things (in reference to what Mr Kirk said, not you). I also never denied that the quote was accurate. I drew a distinction between his quote, on the one hand, and actively advocating violence on the other. The only part of this discussion that involved you was related to your apparent inability to understand that distinction. Getting the vibe this isn't going to be fruitful. Good day.
  - 8note 1y ago
    i dont think passive is a good description of going out of his way to influence politics to enforce that his position is law. improved gun control could have prevented his death, but he advocated hard against it, and fundraised against it. he may not have actively pushed for people to kill somebody in particular, be he doubtlessly influence people to murder students on campus, and put effort to making sure that people would be able to continue to murder people in schools. charlie kirk isnt an abstract concept who only said one thing ever. he's more than that one quote.
    - avazhi 1y ago
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - PenguinCoder 1y ago
    You know nothing about me. Take your 'so-called tolerant' crap elsewhere. The social construct of tolerance was already broken by others like this, don't expect me to abide by it when you don't. What is dishonest about the mans words being brought up in relevant context? > I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. > - Charlie Kirk [0]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-empathy-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-empathy-quote... > Christian Bible says [1]https://biblehub.com/topical/e/empathy_as_a_christian_virtue.htm https://biblehub.com/topical/e/empathy_as_a_christian_virtue... > transgender people should be "dealt with the way we did in the 1950s and 60s" > - Charlie Kirk Really extols peace and forgiveness eh?

by avazhi 1y ago

PenguinCoder 1y ago

[flagged]

avazhi 1y ago
If you can't tell the difference between the quote you've attributed to him, on the one hand, and actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other, then I don't know what to tell you other than that they are categorically different statements. The statement "I think a few people dying in car accidents is a valid price to pay for being able to travel quickly in cars between point A and B" very obviously is not the same thing as the statement "I encourage people to kill themselves in their cars while driving" or "I am glad people routinely die in car crashes". It's expressing the balancing of two things, endorsing State A over State B (Guns vs No Guns) without endorsing violence itself; seen another way, it's endorsing A over B without necessarily saying A is the ultimate ideal - it's just that A is in that person's opinion preferable to B. Personally I think the benefits of getting vaccinated outweigh the risks and indeed I'd say the benefits of being vaccinated are worth the harms they may cause, even to myself; surely it's obvious to you that I can extol vaccine benefits over their known harms while simultaneously hoping that nobody is in fact harmed by them, even thought I know some subset of the population will be (by myocarditis, for example). You've conflated the expression of a preference for active malice. Apathy or acceptance of something is passive; incitement and encouragement of something is active. Surely that's obvious. As far as I know he never advocated murder through assassination or targeted extrajudicial killing. His views on guns and indeed the fact he was speaking about gun violence when he was shot may qualify as ironic, but his philosophical views on the availability of guns to the public were not tantamount to actively encouraging violence.
- PenguinCoder 1y ago
  > actively encouraging assassination and political violence on the other Quit putting words in my mouth. I am not encouraging violence or assassination of political differences. I merely said, his death is quite literally _live by the sword, die by the sword_. That's it. He advocated for freedom of firearms, and died by one. Nothing further to it to read into. This is not malice or extolling violence. Here's a couple of sources of the quote I attribute to him, since you don't believe me or are willfully, obtusely, ignoring what he said. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-qu...
  - avazhi 1y ago
    You've got some issues with reading comprehension. I was (quite obviously) not referring to you there - I was pointing out that those are two different things (in reference to what Mr Kirk said, not you). I also never denied that the quote was accurate. I drew a distinction between his quote, on the one hand, and actively advocating violence on the other. The only part of this discussion that involved you was related to your apparent inability to understand that distinction. Getting the vibe this isn't going to be fruitful. Good day.
- 8note 1y ago
  i dont think passive is a good description of going out of his way to influence politics to enforce that his position is law. improved gun control could have prevented his death, but he advocated hard against it, and fundraised against it. he may not have actively pushed for people to kill somebody in particular, be he doubtlessly influence people to murder students on campus, and put effort to making sure that people would be able to continue to murder people in schools. charlie kirk isnt an abstract concept who only said one thing ever. he's more than that one quote.
  - avazhi 1y ago
dinkumthinkum 1y ago
[flagged]
- PenguinCoder 1y ago
  You know nothing about me. Take your 'so-called tolerant' crap elsewhere. The social construct of tolerance was already broken by others like this, don't expect me to abide by it when you don't. What is dishonest about the mans words being brought up in relevant context? > I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. > - Charlie Kirk [0]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-empathy-quote/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-empathy-quote... > Christian Bible says [1]https://biblehub.com/topical/e/empathy_as_a_christian_virtue.htm https://biblehub.com/topical/e/empathy_as_a_christian_virtue... > transgender people should be "dealt with the way we did in the 1950s and 60s" > - Charlie Kirk Really extols peace and forgiveness eh?