Campus killing lays bare America's bloody and broken politics

[ProfessorDavey]

You were replying to the idea that it was something he wanted.

No I wasn't. I was responding to your incorrect assertion that Aruntraveller's quote suggested Kirk supported violence.

What I think Aruntraveller (Aruntraveller can confirm or otherwise) and I were alluding to wasn't Kirk supporting violence, but accepting violent gun deaths to be a price worth paying. The quote that Aruntraveller used was that Kirk support the notion that gun deaths were acceptable for second amendment rights - in other words he was in support of exactly what happened to him - violent guns deaths as acceptable collateral for second amendment rights.

[Nearly Sane]

No I wasn't. I was responding to your incorrect assertion that Aruntraveller's quote suggested Kirk supported violence.

What I think Aruntraveller (Aruntraveller can confirm or otherwise) and I were alluding to wasn't Kirk supporting violence, but accepting violent gun deaths to be a price worth paying. The quote that Aruntraveller used was that Kirk support the notion that gun deaths were acceptable for second amendment rights - in other words he was in support of exactly what happened to him - violent guns deaths as acceptable collateral for second amendment rights.

And the post from Aruntraveller didn't quote that but rather said it was what 'Charlie would have wanted' a cheap line clearly implying the encouragement of violence from Kirk. A bloke got shot because of his views, which I disagree with, and you are indulging in some pathetic attempt at seeing that as somehow justified because of an irony.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the pist from Aruntraveller didn't quote that but rather said it was what 'Charlie would have wanted' a cheap line clearly implying the encouragement of violence from Kirk. A bloke got shot because of his views, which I disagree with, and you are indulging in some pathetic attempt at seeing that as somehow justified because of an irony.

NS - when in a hole, stop digging. Where in Aruntraveller's quote did it say that this was what 'Charlie would have wanted'. Err, it doesn't. For clarity this is what he wrote:

'I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie supported what happened to Charlie. (Pinched from elsewhere)'

The pretty clear interpretation being that Charlie thought violent gun deaths to be an acceptable collateral for protection of second amendment rights - the very thing that happened to him (i.e. he died through violent gun death). But the person whose quote this is did not support the notion that violent gun deaths were a price worth paying for second amendment rights. A view I agree with, but Kirk did not.

The suggestion that he would have wanted this (i.e. being killed through violent gun death) is clearly bonkers.

[Nearly Sane]

NS - when in a hole, stop digging. Where in Aruntraveller's quote did it say that this was what 'Charlie would have wanted'. Err, it doesn't. For clarity this is what he wrote:

'I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie supported what happened to Charlie. (Pinched from elsewhere)'

The pretty clear interpretation being that Charlie thought violent gun deaths to be an acceptable collateral for protection of second amendment rights - the very thing that happened to him (i.e. he died through violent gun death). But the person whose quote this is did not support the notion that violent gun deaths were a price worth paying for second amendment rights. A view I agree with, but Kirk did not.

The suggestion that he would have wanted this (i.e. being killed through violent gun death) is clearly bonkers.

Supported what happened to Charlie implies exactly that. It doesn't say accepted as a risk, it says supported it happening . Supported murder. So try again

[ProfessorDavey]

Supported what happened to Charlie implies exactly that. It doesn't say accepted as a risk, it says supported it happening . Supported murder. So try again

Yawn - what he supported was that violent guns deaths were a price worth paying for second amendment rights. He died through a violent gun death which he thought were a price worth paying ... etc, etc, etc.

Not really hard, is it NS. So stop lying and misrepresenting what Aruntraveller and I have posted.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn - what he supported was that violent guns deaths were a price worth paying for second amendment rights. He died through a violent gun death which he thought were a price worth paying ... etc, etc, etc.

Not really hard, is it NS. So stop lying and misrepresenting what Aruntraveller and I have posted.

What happened to Kirk was murder. To say that Kirk supported it, is to say that Kirk supported murder. Supported what happenef and accepted a risk are two different concepts though they seem too hard for you to grasp..

[ProfessorDavey]

What happened to Kirk was murder.

Yes it was and an appalling and violent crime.

To say that Kirk supported it, is to say that Kirk supported murder. Supported what happenef and accepted a risk are two different concepts though they seem too hard for you to grasp..

But neither I nor Aruntraveller have claimed or suggested that he supported murder. You keep ignoring that fact that Kirk's comments were about a trade-off between two things, not about whether he supported something (violent gun deaths/murder per se).

Why is this such a hard concept for you. I might think A is an awful thing but I might think that proposing action B to prevent A is worse as I think the loss of freedom entailed by proposed action B is worse than the negative impact of A.

That's what Kirk was saying. Not that violent gun death is OK (A in my example). But that removing second amendment rights (proposed action B) is worse and therefore that he is accepting that some violent gun deaths (which will of course include murder) are a price worth paying to prevent proposed action B (removing second amendment rights).

[Aruntraveller]

What happened to Kirk was murder. To say that Kirk supported it, is to say that Kirk supported murder. Supported what happenef and accepted a risk are two different concepts though they seem too hard for you to grasp..

No, he supported that a number of deaths were necessary, because he wanted to retain the 2A. He became one of those numbers. Like y'know children in schools. Absolutely, if, unfortunately, necessary to preserve the 2A rights. That's what he thought was necessary. Dead kids, unfortunately.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, he supported that a number of deaths were necessary, because he wanted to retain the 2A. He became one of those numbers. Like y'know children in schools. Absolutely, if, unfortunately, necessary to preserve the 2A rights. That's what he thought was necessary. Dead kids, unfortunately.

Exactly - the point that NS keeps ignoring is that his comment was about a trade off between two things (violent gun deaths and loss of second amendment rights), neither of which he presumably supported or wanted. But in that trade off he considered that some additional violent gun deaths were a price worth paying in order to retain second amendment rights.

Not a hard concept but one that NS seems unable (or perhaps unwilling) to understand.

[Nearly Sane]

No, he supported that a number of deaths were necessary, because he wanted to retain the 2A. He became one of those numbers. Like y'know children in schools. Absolutely, if, unfortunately, necessary to preserve the 2A rights. That's what he thought was necessary. Dead kids, unfortunately.

He doesn't support the deaths. He accepts there is a risk. You using the term support shows the issue

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly - the point that NS keeps ignoring is that his comment was about a trade off between two things (violent gun deaths and loss of second amendment rights), neither of which he presumably supported or wanted. But in that trade off he considered that some additional violent gun deaths were a price worth paying in order to retain second amendment rights.

Not a hard concept but one that NS seems unable (or perhaps unwilling) to understand.

in no sense have I ignored it  indeed I have emphasised that is his position. Bit that dies not mean he supports the deaths.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it was and an appalling and violent crime.
But neither I nor Aruntraveller have claimed or suggested that he supported murder. You keep ignoring that fact that Kirk's comments were about a trade-off between two things, not about whether he supported something (violent gun deaths/murder per se).

Why is this such a hard concept for you. I might think A is an awful thing but I might think that proposing action B to prevent A is worse as I think the loss of freedom entailed by proposed action B is worse than the negative impact of A.

That's what Kirk was saying. Not that violent gun death is OK (A in my example). But that removing second amendment rights (proposed action B) is worse and therefore that he is accepting that some violent gun deaths (which will of course include murder) are a price worth paying to prevent proposed action B (removing second amendment rights).

The line, cheap s it was, and stolen, used the word supported. Not accepted as a risk. And you ignored thar that is what my post makes clear.

[Nearly Sane]

Suzanne Moore on the death of Kirk and the issue too many on the left have on dialogue

https://archive.is/NHKGO

[Nearly Sane]

The details on the suspect so far. Lot of speculation on line that he is influenced by very far right motives.

Have to say that the Itah governor, Spencer Cox sounds a lot more presidential in his statements than the president.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8wl2y66p9o

[Aruntraveller]

Have to say that the Itah governor, Spencer Cox sounds a lot more presidential in his statements than the president.

Not a terribly high bar given Trump's ramble about his ballroom yesterday after being specifically asked about the murder of Kirk. But yes, Cox came across very well.

[jeremyp]

And the post from Aruntraveller didn't quote that but rather said it was what 'Charlie would have wanted' a cheap line clearly implying the encouragement of violence from Kirk.

I don't think it does imply the encouragement of violence. All it implies is that his own death was part of the price that Kirk thought was worth paying for the 2A. He didn't want gun deaths but he did want the 2A and accepted that gun deaths go along with that.

A bloke got shot because of his views

Do we know that at this point? Have they ascertained the motive?

you are indulging in some pathetic attempt at seeing that as somehow justified because of an irony.

Now you are doing what you accuse everybody else of. Pointing out the irony of somebody being shot who had the view that some shootings were acceptable is not the same as wanting 2A advocates to get shot any more than Charlie Kirk wanted people to get shot.

[jeremyp]

He doesn't support the deaths. He accepts there is a risk. You using the term support shows the issue

Actually, risk doesn't come in to it. He accepted the inevitability. The idea that there is a risk implies you think it might not happen.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, risk doesn't come in to it. He accepted the inevitability. The idea that there is a risk implies you think it might not happen.

And we all do that on multiple occasions. It doesn't mean he supported  murder

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think it does imply the encouragement of violence. All it implies is that his own death was part of the price that Kirk thought was worth paying for the 2A. He didn't want gun deaths but he did want the 2A and accepted that gun deaths go along with that.
Do we know that at this point? Have they ascertained the motive?
Now you are doing what you accuse everybody else of. Pointing out the irony of somebody being shot who had the view that some shootings were acceptable is not the same as wanting 2A advocates to get shot any more than Charlie Kirk wanted people to get shot.

So you don't think support what happened, which was murder, implies support for murder?

[jeremyp]

And we all do that on multiple occasions. It doesn't mean he supported  murder

No, he said it was a price worth paying so Americans can keep their guns. I think that is what everybody posting here thinks his position was. You should probably stop accusing them of saying he supported murder because they all deny holding that position.

[jeremyp]

So you don't think support what happened, which was murder, implies support for murder?

If you support Charlie Kirk's murder, you support murder. However, you are the only person here who thinks anybody on this forum supports Charlie Kirk's murder.

[Nearly Sane]

No, he said it was a price worth paying so Americans can keep their guns. I think that is what everybody posting here thinks his position was. You should probably stop accusing them of saying he supported murder because they all deny holding that position.

Then they shouldn't agree with a comment that it is what he supported because it's a lazy snide way of saying tgar what happened, murder, was part of what he supported. I am happy if they want to withdraw the stolen comment and support for it but so far they have simply doubled down on tgar. Do you agree that it's a valid statement about Kirk's position?

[Nearly Sane]

If you support Charlie Kirk's murder, you support murder. However, you are the only person here who thinks anybody on this forum supports Charlie Kirk's murder.

Oh argumentum as populum. I am arguing that the statement that what happened is what Kirk supported implies support for murder  if people want to back away from that simplistic snide approach fair enough but so far they haven't. Language becomes more important in such times, not less.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm arguing that the statement does no such thing. It was pointing out that Kirk said a number of gun deaths was a price worth paying. I think most people would accept that the phrase "price worth paying" indicates support for a position even if you stick in a gratuitous  "unfortunately" to make your position somehow more palatable.

I don't support murder, and neither did the statement. It pointed out that the writer did not believe that gun deaths were necessary, whereas CK did.

This appears to be an argument about semantics more than anything else.

Your comment about language being important is true, perhaps that should have been taken up with the now, apparently venerated Mr Kirk when he was spewing hate every which way. Words do have consequences, even if I don't like those consequences.

EDIT: I probably won't respond further as it appears we are reading the statement in fundamentally different ways, I apparently can no more see your pov than you can mine.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm arguing that the statement does no such thing. It was pointing out that Kirk said a number of gun deaths was a price worth paying. I think most people would accept that the phrase "price worth paying" indicates support for a position even if you stick in a gratuitous  "unfortunately" to make your position somehow more palatable.

I don't support murder, and neither did the statement. It pointed out that the writer did not believe that gun deaths were necessary, whereas CK did.

This appears to be an argument about semantics more than anything else.

Your comment about language being important is true, perhaps that should have been taken up with the now, apparently venerated Mr Kirk when he was spewing hate every which way. Words do have consequences, even if I don't like those consequences.

He was murdered. Nothing in what he says gives any support to that. He didn't support murder and your post just makes it even more like you want to imply that he did.