6 ms·

I should have known better than to reply under this submission. HN is no different from Twitter or Instagram when it comes to anything political. My question w

I should have known better than to reply under this submission. HN is no different from Twitter or Instagram when it comes to anything political. My question was not answered, and my comment was ignored. Good job for everyone here for not being able to hold a rational, non-heated conversation.

Nervhq 1y ago
Oh yeah man these guys are all leftwing brainwashed idiots. Never forget
croes 1y ago
The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent. He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership? Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  > Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun. I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    > criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation. The definition of a criminal is somebody who breaks the law, which means anyone who breaks any law is disregarding the existence of a law. This is not unique to gun legislation. If your bar for whether or not we should have laws and restrictions is whether or not people will break them, then I don’t really know how you can square that with the necessary existence of our judicial system. Let’s look at this another way: despite DUI laws, there are people still drinking and driving every day. Should we remove the restriction and just allow drinking and driving?
- nailer 1y ago
  He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.
  - croes 1y ago
    Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license. What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.
    - nailer 1y ago
      > What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them. > According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts No.
      - croes 1y ago
        So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity? That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths. Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage.
  - munksbeer 1y ago
    > the price of allowing a population to arm themselves It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about. So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives. By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.
- zahlman 1y ago
  The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives". It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.
  - Nervhq 1y ago
    Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face.
Forgeties79 1y ago
Let's roll back the tape a bit. This is the key excerpt from the comment you were initially responding to that you're claiming did not get a sufficient response: >There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti... If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media: Notice they said "he would be writing and speaking about how such violence...is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable - even necessary - to 'preserve our freedoms.'" To which you responded: >He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd. Where did they say "advocated" or "encouraged" or anything remotely like that? "Acceptable" and "necessary" are not saying "pro-" as you are implying they said. So right out the gate you are misrepresenting the person and moving the goalposts so that a bar which you have established on your own must be met. So my question is: why should anyone feel obligated to meet your challenge? They said Kirk ultimately determined that these sacrifices are acceptable, even necessary, for the second amendment which he considered a good thing worthy of virtually any cost. You twisted that into claiming he was advocating for violence and school shootings. Clearly that is not what they said at all. The way you’re approaching this discussion is the same way people like Shapiro and Kirk (used to) approach debates. Just like the above quote from Charlie where he said it’s [sic] “ridiculous to expect no deaths in a country that allows guns.“ Who said zero deaths? Why is that the bar and who set it? It clearly isn’t reasonable. But when pundits like them says things like that, they get to paint anybody who disagrees with them as having foolish expectations

Nervhq 1y ago

Oh yeah man these guys are all leftwing brainwashed idiots. Never forget

croes 1y ago

The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent. He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership? Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.

johnisgood 1y ago
> Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun. I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  > criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation. The definition of a criminal is somebody who breaks the law, which means anyone who breaks any law is disregarding the existence of a law. This is not unique to gun legislation. If your bar for whether or not we should have laws and restrictions is whether or not people will break them, then I don’t really know how you can square that with the necessary existence of our judicial system. Let’s look at this another way: despite DUI laws, there are people still drinking and driving every day. Should we remove the restriction and just allow drinking and driving?
nailer 1y ago
He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.
- croes 1y ago
  Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license. What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.
  - nailer 1y ago
    > What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns? Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them. > According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts No.
    - croes 1y ago
      So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity? That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths. Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage.
- munksbeer 1y ago
  > the price of allowing a population to arm themselves It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about. So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives. By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.
zahlman 1y ago
The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives". It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.
- Nervhq 1y ago
  Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face.

Forgeties79 1y ago

Let's roll back the tape a bit. This is the key excerpt from the comment you were initially responding to that you're claiming did not get a sufficient response: >There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti... If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media: Notice they said "he would be writing and speaking about how such violence...is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable - even necessary - to 'preserve our freedoms.'" To which you responded: >He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd. Where did they say "advocated" or "encouraged" or anything remotely like that? "Acceptable" and "necessary" are not saying "pro-" as you are implying they said. So right out the gate you are misrepresenting the person and moving the goalposts so that a bar which you have established on your own must be met. So my question is: why should anyone feel obligated to meet your challenge? They said Kirk ultimately determined that these sacrifices are acceptable, even necessary, for the second amendment which he considered a good thing worthy of virtually any cost. You twisted that into claiming he was advocating for violence and school shootings. Clearly that is not what they said at all. The way you’re approaching this discussion is the same way people like Shapiro and Kirk (used to) approach debates. Just like the above quote from Charlie where he said it’s [sic] “ridiculous to expect no deaths in a country that allows guns.“ Who said zero deaths? Why is that the bar and who set it? It clearly isn’t reasonable. But when pundits like them says things like that, they get to paint anybody who disagrees with them as having foolish expectations