Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
![]()
Thought this thread could use a moment of levity.
I guess we better get ready to welcome a new member.
![]()
Thought this thread could use a moment of levity.
odds of that happening?what happens if it's someone from the right that did this?
LOL, I've been here for years.I guess we better get ready to welcome a new member.
Don't call it a comeback...LOL, I've been here for years.
In this analogy the disgusting revelry in Charlie's assassination would be equivalent to laughing at someone getting intentionally run over and dying because they believed that driving cars should be legal.I have heard Kirk use the analogy that is also "unfortunate" that deaths occur due to traffic accidents but banning cars isn't a proposed solution.
LOL, I've been here for years.
No he literally said he is okay with gun violence as long as the 2nd amendment is kept, there is no lines to read between it was his actual words.
Okay, I see what I'm dealing with here. You continue to leave out context. He said that in his view, gun deaths are a tragic but inevitable societal cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment. He also laid out ways he thinks the violence could be reduced. You can disagree with that position, but turning that into "He wasn't against what happened to him." is intellectually dishonest and insensitive. Treating his death like it's deserved or ironic dehumanises the conversation. Get a grip.Cool, add him to the "some gun deaths" pile.
![]()
He wasn't against what happened to him.
You're saying we've never been more united on NeoGaf?
Had a look at their thread... absolutely fascist forum, and revealing of who the left really is.![]()
Thought this thread could use a moment of levity.
I have heard Kirk use the analogy that is also "unfortunate" that deaths occur due to traffic accidents but banning cars isn't a proposed solution.
Looks like it, slowing the video down it does indeed look like a center mass shot in the chest area and the bullet glances upwardWait, vest? Like a bullet proof vest? He was wearing one?
You're saying we've never been more united on NeoGaf?
The site that spawned ResetEra, And the world followed suit....I don't need to debate it we was the beta testers for this shit![]()
I mean, his solutions were more fathers in homes and more armed guards at school. Both weak and tone-deaf solutions to the problem. I mean, a armed guard didn't save him at school today.Okay, I see what I'm dealing with here. You continue to leave out context. He said that in his view, gun deaths are a tragic but inevitable societal cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment. He also laid out ways he thinks the violence could be reduced. You can disagree with that position, but turning that into "He wasn't against what happened to him." is intellectually dishonest and insensitive. Treating his death like it's deserved or ironic dehumanises the conversation. Get a grip.
Just curious, did it also put a fire in your gut when 20 1st graders were shot in their school?Gotta admit, this one hits hard and puts a fire in my gut. RIP Charlie Kirk.
He said word for word that he is okay with some deaths as long as he can keep the 2nd amendment to protect his other god given rights, explain to me exactly how am I misrepresenting this issue here Master Debater??Okay, I see what I'm dealing with here. You continue to leave out context. He said that in his view, gun deaths are a tragic but inevitable societal cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment. He also laid out ways he thinks the violence could be reduced. You can disagree with that position, but turning that into "He wasn't against what happened to him." is intellectually dishonest and insensitive. Treating his death like it's deserved or ironic dehumanises the conversation. Get a grip.
I guess he became a societal cost then.He said that in his view, gun deaths are a tragic but inevitable societal cost of preserving the 2nd Amendment.
You're cherry picking a line and stripping away the full context of what he said. He didn't just shrug at gun deaths, he acknowledge them as a tragic reality of an armed society, he argued that liberty comes with trade-off and then went on to suggest ways to reduce gun violence. Saying he was fine with being assassinated is a leap, he was making a broad argument. You're misrepresenting it in both an inaccurate and needlessly insensitive way.He said word for word that he is okay with some deaths as long as he can keep the 2nd amendment to protect his other god given rights, explain to me exactly how am I misrepresenting this issue here Master Debater??
Cool, add him to the "some gun deaths" pile.
An armed guard is also not going to be 200 yards away from the school. If you think more fathers in homes is a weak solution, I suggest you take a look at some stats. You might be surprised.I mean, his solutions were more fathers in homes and more armed guards at school. Both weak and tone-deaf solutions to the problem. I mean, a armed guard didn't save him at school today.
That's not an option for some households. What do you do then?An armed guard is also not going to be 200 yards away from the school. If you think more fathers in homes is a weak solution, I suggest you take a look at some stats. You might be surprised.
Oh, I'm sure he doesn't mind; he went out fighting for what he believed in. He had a better death than most of us will get, and a better life in 25 years than most will have in 80.Cool, add him to the "some gun deaths" pile.
I hate the whole left vs right for so many reasons. For one, we are all Americans(those who are). Two, there's nothing inherently violent about left or right. Most people of either are not violent or murderers. Nor is left or right an official group. It's just a placement on a political spectrum, much of which is kind of arbitrary these days to begin with. People don't commit murder because they're left wing or right wing. People commit murder for: anger, revenge, greed, jealousy, money, etc. These are emotional stimuli present within all people and independent of political ideation. Right wing or left wing extremists don't commit murder because they are left or right. They commit murder because they have been convinced murdering someone is necessary. Or been convinced to hate another person enough to kill them. Or whatever other reason. It's the emotional state that causes a person to kill.what happens if it's someone from the right that did this?
I think more fathers in the homes isn't a weak solution, but an overly simplistic variable in a complicated equation.An armed guard is also not going to be 200 yards away from the school. If you think more fathers in homes is a weak solution, I suggest you take a look at some stats. You might be surprised.
He said word for word that he is okay with some deaths as long as he can keep the 2nd amendment to protect his other god given rights, explain to me exactly how am I misrepresenting this issue here Master Debater??
You're not this stupid (I hope). You just hate him.I guess he became a societal cost then.
Hi, you seem to be confused as to what an analogy is. It's actually a comparison of two things that aren't the same, but have something in common. So, it's not surprising that a gun isn't a mode of transportation, because the point of the analogy isn't that you can ride a gun to the next town over and see your meemaw. The point of the analogy is to illustrate another context in which we as a society have deemed a similar loss in life to be a necessary tradeoff.I see this analogy from time to time, but a gun is very different to a mode of transportation. You don't need a gun to go and shop for groceries, or drop your kids at daycare, or travel to meet with family or loved ones. A car for many people is a basic necessity for day to day life, you can't say the same for a gun.
Oh, I'm sure he doesn't mind; he went out fighting for what he believed in. He had a better death than most of us will get, and a better life in 25 years than most will have in 80.
they just won't cop to it. see for example the two democratic state senators that were shot a few months ago. there are still people on the right who maintain that the perpetrator was on the left. Or for that matter the individual who tried to kill Trump, who was a registered republican.what happens if it's someone from the right that did this?
You aren't wrong but the odds are low enough that these people are likely, but not guaranteed to be, correct. We'll see I guessI agree in theory; however, people making these points without knowing definitively the motivation of the shooting are potentially setting themselves up to look silly.