5 ms·

If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. That's just explaining cause and effect. You're bending over backwards

If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. That's just explaining cause and effect. You're bending over backwards to come up with an excuse for shutting down speech for purely ideological reasons. Justify policies enabling gun violence, and you make the world a more dangerous place, including for yourself. Sow hate and violence, and you end up creating people who hate you back. Why is that so hard to understand for some people? Why on earth do some people interpret that as a call for violence? None of it makes any sense.

zahlman 1y ago
> If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. Hundreds of millions of Americans support the right to bear arms on at least some level.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. I come from a New Zealand, and we have fairly strict gun laws. That having loose laws and lots of guns comes with more deaths doesn’t seem at all surprising.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I come from (have lived in my entire life) Canada, which also has fairly strict gun laws. It is indeed not surprising that a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths. That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. > I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. > Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified".
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough ... This standard is not weak. That is a dishonest attack. His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  1. Drumming up hate and violence and 2. arming the population dramatically increases the likelihood of widespread shootings. The risk is particularly acute for those at the forefront of these efforts. Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second does not alter the reality of the situation. These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence, despite your mental gymnastics. > It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second I have not done these things. I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. > These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence I did not say they were. "Encouragement" and "justification" do not mean the same thing. Yes, I proposed that this was approximately as bad as saying that it was a good thing. Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. > That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification. It is not a derailment. It is a characterization of what's wrong with your analogy. The entire point is that you are trying to say that someone (Dowd) pointed out logical cause and effect, but he did not. He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. It is nothing of the sort. Kirk's quote, on the other hand, is accepting a statistical consequence and making a statement about risk and moral tradeoff, in defense of what he considered a fundamental right (I disagree, btw).
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      > I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. > The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. It's not about "magnitude." I'm addressing your use of euphemisms when discussing the arming of the population with deadly weapons. You refer to it as "supporting the right to bear arms," as if that's just a matter of opinion and something harmless. No, it has real consequences and costs lives. > Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. > He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people results in armed people turning against you. Again, this isn't hard to understand. Nor is it unethical to point this out. The mental gymnastics on display is astounding. You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

zahlman 1y ago

> If somebody says "when you jump off a cliff, you fall," that's not "justifying" anything. It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. Hundreds of millions of Americans support the right to bear arms on at least some level.

lostlogin 1y ago
> There is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms. I come from a New Zealand, and we have fairly strict gun laws. That having loose laws and lots of guns comes with more deaths doesn’t seem at all surprising.
- zahlman 1y ago
  I come from (have lived in my entire life) Canada, which also has fairly strict gun laws. It is indeed not surprising that a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths. That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > a rise in access to guns correlates with a rise in shooting deaths > That was indeed Kirk's exact point. This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. > I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. > Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified".
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > This is a disingenuous framing of his quotes that are being thrown around. No, it isn't. The disingenuous framing is the one supposing that his model of "some gun deaths" included political assassinations. It clearly did not. > That's not "of course there will be deaths", it's "the deaths are justified". It is "of course there will be deaths". Just as it would be if the subject were cars, or kitchen knives, or poisonous household cleaners, or pesticides, or any other potentially lethal thing that ordinary Americans have access to. If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough to include this, then it is too weak to conclude that there is any harm or moral wrong in saying it. To pick on this is to miss the point completely: > This does not contradict the quoted point in the slightest. It is worlds apart from what you are trying to dispute. Taking risks is not in the same category as being targeted. I've explained this in many other comments already. And I'm doing this as a Canadian who doesn't share Kirk's view.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > If your standard for "justifying" is weak enough ... This standard is not weak. That is a dishonest attack. His statement is meant to justify the obviously un-needed deaths of children as a necessary evil for Americans to have a "God given right" to own guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_to_Prevent_This,%27_...
soraminazuki 1y ago
1. Drumming up hate and violence and 2. arming the population dramatically increases the likelihood of widespread shootings. The risk is particularly acute for those at the forefront of these efforts. Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second does not alter the reality of the situation. These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence, despite your mental gymnastics. > It is when you say it of someone who was pushed rather than jumping. That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Dismissing the first point and downplaying the second I have not done these things. I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. > These points also are in no way an encouragement of violence I did not say they were. "Encouragement" and "justification" do not mean the same thing. Yes, I proposed that this was approximately as bad as saying that it was a good thing. Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. > That's some blatant attempt at derailing the discussion, but even then you're still wrong. Cause and effect is still not justification. It is not a derailment. It is a characterization of what's wrong with your analogy. The entire point is that you are trying to say that someone (Dowd) pointed out logical cause and effect, but he did not. He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. It is nothing of the sort. Kirk's quote, on the other hand, is accepting a statistical consequence and making a statement about risk and moral tradeoff, in defense of what he considered a fundamental right (I disagree, btw).
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    > I have disputed the first, and still not been shown good evidence. You can easily look that up. I'm not going to rehash every hateful far right arguments here. In fact, you can read the article to find a clear example of his behavior, where he literally cheers and jokes about political violence directed at those he disagrees with. > The magnitude of the second is irrelevant to the argument. It's not about "magnitude." I'm addressing your use of euphemisms when discussing the arming of the population with deadly weapons. You refer to it as "supporting the right to bear arms," as if that's just a matter of opinion and something harmless. No, it has real consequences and costs lives. > Saying that something is a good thing is still not the same as encouraging further such actions. That's a straight up lie. Dowd didn't say or even suggest that the shooting was a good thing. And no amount of mental gymnastics about "approximation" is going to make this not a lie. > He saw a deliberate illegal act and attempted to characterize the specific as a natural consequence of increased access to tools. Yes, needlessly antagonizing and arming people results in armed people turning against you. Again, this isn't hard to understand. Nor is it unethical to point this out. The mental gymnastics on display is astounding. You're falsely accusing people of justifying violence, while defending someone who actually did that.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]