[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

My take on this is that its more schtick... ie Kirk didn't actually believe this as a principle to the point that he was actually willing to die for it... he was mostly just being an edgelord/trolling when he said it at best, and at worst, never thought for a second that he himself might die to gun violence, but considered that other people would die for it, and was indifferent to their deaths.
Remember, for him, empathy is a sin. I guess his wife needs none.

I wonder what George Carlin would have done with Trump.
 
The now infamously ironic comment he made about gun-deaths being a necessary sacrifice to preserve gun-rights is analysis-worthy in this regard.


My take on this is that its more schtick... ie Kirk didn't actually believe this as a principle to the point that he was actually willing to die for it... he was mostly just being an edgelord/trolling when he said it at best, and at worst, never thought for a second that he himself might die to gun violence, but considered that other people would die for it, and was indifferent to their deaths.
Here is the full video that gives context to the quote:


He made the parallel with traffic deaths.
Do we get rid of cars, because people die in car-related accidents? No, of course not.

He never said that he wanted school shootings, or that school shootings are acceptable.
So, he wasn't indifferent to their deaths. Just like we aren't indifferent to car-related deaths.

He proposed another solution than others. Where one says "we should get rid of guns altogether" he said "having more armed guards in front of schools"
We can disagree with the solution - I do, but I don't think he shrugged at the school shootings.
 
That is the oldest and most stupid comparison. Cars are necessary and his finality is to transport people not to kill people. Weapons otoh are unnecessary and killing people is its only finality. He could similarly have used food instead of cars and the fact some people die choked.

Funny as the says having 'some' guns deaths every year is worth it. I wonder if the would think the same after knowing he was included in that 'some'.

This was the great speaker? Not a big loss for humanity I would say.
 
Last edited:
Cars also require you to be licensed and tested to able to legally drive one, and they come with mandatory insurance in most places.

We do not teach people that driving a car is their "constitutional right" - that would be quite silly.
 
If I say:
"Right wing ideology is inherently violent"
It does not mean I'm also saying:
"Left wingers are never violent"

This is really really really really really really basic logic. Sometimes in speech people do imply a full opposite, so it's important to think critically and know when is when.

So I gave you the orc vs human example, but that's risk analysis which is a little more complex than first semester high school geometry (where logic is taught).

Hygro "Orcs are inherently violent"
Cake "But some famous humans were just as violent"
Unanswered question: what value do you add criticizing humans when the only alternative is orcs? It's a fantasy example, there are no orcs. But it illustrates something.

What something is doesn't matter because when have you ever engaged this type of post on its terms ever :wallbash::aargh:

🪦 here lies Hygro, died of hitting his head on a wall, heard yelling "All orcs are rectangles but not all rectangles are orcs"
I am bookmarking this for future use...too bad I can't go back to the past to retort with this to some vile attacks made against me though.
Thanks
 
Kirk didn't actually believe this as a principle to the point that he was actually willing to die for it... he was mostly just being an edgelord/trolling when he said it at best, and at worst, never thought for a second that he himself might die to gun violence, but considered that other people would die for it, and was indifferent to their deaths
That's absolutely my take on it as well. Farquar's "Some of you may die, but that's a chance I'm willing to take." Anyway, the circumstances of his death preclude treating him as a martyr for this principle. He'd have to go knowingly to his death proclaiming his belief in this principle. I.e. someone corners him and says, "ok, you're going to be one of those necessary gun deaths; do you still hold to that view?" And if he proclaimed a loud and unwavering "Yes," one could treat him as a martyr for the second amendment.
 
That's absolutely my take on it as well. Farquar's "Some of you may die, but that's a chance I'm willing to take." Anyway, the circumstances of his death preclude treating him as a martyr for this principle. He'd have to go knowingly to his death proclaiming his belief in this principle. I.e. someone corners him and says, "ok, you're going to be one of those necessary gun deaths; do you still hold to that view?" And if he proclaimed a loud and unwavering "Yes," one could treat him as a martyr for the second amendment.
I don't think its necessary that to be considered a martyr, that the person must go knowingly and/or willingly to their death in the moment. Ultimately, the deciding factor is more about how proponents of the particular cause feel about the person, which gives them martyr status. However, I think that what matters, is that we, as observers, know, sense, are satisfied, based on some conduct or statements that the martyr has given us, that they were willing to die/risk death in a tangible sense, as opposed to simply being aware of the risk in abstract, hypothetical/theoretical terms. Whether William Wallace's final moments played out in the manner depicted in the iconic Mel Gibson film is irrelevant. We know that he fought multiple battles for the cause of Scottish Independence, and so, was demonstrably, conclusively proven to be willing to face death for his cause.

So to your point, I'd say MLK's iconic "I've been to the mountaintop" speech, his final speech, delivered the day before his assassination, falls pretty squarely into this category, but even prior to that, MLK was constantly putting himself in harm's way, in situations where he faced the real possibility of death and/or serious injury for his cause(s). That is what justifies regarding him as a martyr. In the less famous, but still well known "if I had sneezed" section of his final "mountaintop" speech, he references a prior failed assassination attempt that left him hospitalized and in critical condition such that he was within a "sneeze" of death. Despite knowing that he was constantly under very real, proven risk of death, he continued his work. So whether he said the words "Yes, I'm willing to stay my course despite knowing it will cost me my life" is less relevant than the reality of his actions. He demonstrated, on an ongoing basis, that he was willing to put himself to the peril for his cause(s).


Among the iconic lines of this speech, King mentions being grateful for being allowed to live into the "second half of the 20th century" implying that he suspects that he is not long for the world and has survived only through Divine grace/providence. But the most famous part is the "mountaintop" ending line(s), where MLK more directly implies/predicts/prophesies his impending death, by invoking the the Biblical account(s) of Moses as well as Jesus final night in the Garden of Gethsemane and His words at The Last Supper:
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
So without explicitly saying "Yes, take me to the gallows for my beliefs", MLK amply demonstrated that he was aware of the risk of imminent death he was constantly under (maybe even more specifically under at that moment in time) and was nevertheless willing to stay the course. Charlie Kirk never fit into this category. I don't think Kirk ever contemplated that he might die for his cause. I'm sure he received random threats online/in the mail etc., but I doubt he took any of it particularly seriously, as anything more than the bog-standard cost of being famous/provocative. Kirk didn't give me any indication that he was willing to put himself at risk of any real threat of imminent death for his cause(s).

One of the multiple reasons I think I'm relieved that the assassination attempt(s) against Trump failed, is because it arguably established that Trump is aware of facing a real threat of death and despite this, continues working towards his cause(s), one of which being the creation of an American fascist dictatorship in his own name. I would not want to see Trump become an American martyr, because of the power it would imbue his cause(s) with.
 
Last edited:
That is the oldest and most stupid comparison. Cars are necessary and his finality is to transport people not to kill people. Weapons otoh are unnecessary and killing people is its only finality. He could similarly have used food instead of cars and the fact some people die choked.
had you understood the video, you'd have known that Kirk's argument was that guns are also necessary.
You don't agree, sure. But that was his argument.

Funny as the says having 'some' guns deaths every year is worth it. I wonder if the would think the same after knowing he was included in that 'some'.
Well, what do you think? Would he?

This was the great speaker? Not a big loss for humanity I would say.
Grow up.
 
Do we get rid of cars, because people die in car-related accidents? No, of course not.
We make people pass competence/safety exams, submit annual registration, obtain plates/tags and purchase insurance for cars, the latter of these with periodic renewals required.

Not to mention that the purpose of cars is transportation, not harming people, animals or property. The purpose of guns is shooting, ie causing harm/damage to living things or property.

The oft-raised car comparison to guns is a Non-sequitur.
 
Last edited:
We make people pass competence/safety exams, submit annual registration, obtain plates/tags and purchase insurance for cars, the latter of these with periodic renewals required.

Not to mention that the purpose of cars is transportation, not harming people, animals or property. The purpose of guns is shooting, ie causing harm/damage to living things or property.

The oft-raised car comparison to guns is a Non-sequitur.
See what happens when you know context?

You engage in discussion about the validity of arguments. You get to understand why someone thinks what way.
Instead of just regurgitating out-of-context quotes.
 
@Sommerswerd. I agree with your long post on MLK and it's a fair refinement of my point. Frankly, if Kirk had added "even if should happen to be me," then I would regard him as a martyr for his belief in the second amendment.

Would have been cool if he'd been asked that question: what if it was you? And then this one: what if it was your children? That last one might have given him pause.

(Though I guess he said that if his ten year old daughter was raped, he would have her carry the child to term. So that's a pretty ghoulish level of willingness to sacrifice someone else for your beliefs. Even he couldn't bear to actually own the position. Had to put it in the passive voice.)
 
Last edited:
See what happens when you know context?

You engage in discussion about the validity of arguments. You get to understand why someone thinks what way.
Instead of just regurgitating out-of-context quotes.
As Sommer pointed out, the context doesn’t add anything of value. Why muddle the conversation with useless information?
 
Another day, another misquote.

“Want to look at it as a time of healing, a time of whatever, that something like this could've happened — is not even believable,”​


Confused by how you think this changes the meaning
 
Back
Top Bottom