Get wrecked white supremacist fascist, advocate for gun violence and against empathy means you shouldn’t be surprised when someone takes you up on that bet.
“I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I’ve come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” - G M Gilbert
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” - Karl Popper
If I got this right you took something I didn’t say as your foundational point to argue against, said that I should say what you want me to say instead to be truthful, and that advocating for intolerance against the intolerant is dumb because you’ve defined it to either include or require political violence.
I guess you get points for boldness, but -10 points from gryphondorf for arguing with yourself.
And to be clear; supporting assassinations & enjoying the poetic justice of someone who advocated for gun violence and that some people should be killed for who they were born as and not their choices getting killed by a gun are not the same thing.
Okay. Is the point of that comment that political assassinations of non-violent people should never happen?
What does Popper mean by “defend a tolerant society”? What do you think people should think when you post that now in a thread about a political murder?
He did support gun violence, wasn’t his whole motif the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and armed guards in schools to prevent mass shootings? That’s clearly advocating for gun violence to avoid the obvious solution of better gun control regulations. He was willing to accept violent gun deaths in support of his 2a position.
Using that logic, everyone who supports cops or the military using guns is a supporter of gun violence, and anyone who supports physical self-defense is a supporter of violence. Makes the notion of “supporting violence” politically pointless.
He was willing to accept violent gun deaths in support of his 2a position.
Yeah. Everything has a trade-off. I don’t want swimming pools outlawed, so I have to accept that ~350 toddlers are going to drown accidentally in pools every year. That does NOT mean I support toddlers drowning, I just tolerate it as a cost. It’s not like Kirk wanted deaths from gun violence.
https://youtu.be/JFGQdvYIJ0M
https://youtu.be/RBgtdq3vuqg
https://delawareblack.com/charlie-kirk-on-race-key-statements-and-controversies/
Get wrecked white supremacist fascist, advocate for gun violence and against empathy means you shouldn’t be surprised when someone takes you up on that bet.
“I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I’ve come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” - G M Gilbert
The irony of this comment.
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” - Karl Popper
Do those words mean you support the assassination of someone who was non-violent but expressed disagreeable viewpoints? That’s not very tolerant.
By this standard anyone who supports such a thing should also be assassinated. (Note: anyone can define anything anyway they want to justify this)
This is why the paradox of tolerance is a stupid, poorly camouflaged advocacy for political violence.
Just own up to saying you want to kill your political enemies. It’s more honest.
If I got this right you took something I didn’t say as your foundational point to argue against, said that I should say what you want me to say instead to be truthful, and that advocating for intolerance against the intolerant is dumb because you’ve defined it to either include or require political violence.
I guess you get points for boldness, but -10 points from gryphondorf for arguing with yourself.
And to be clear; supporting assassinations & enjoying the poetic justice of someone who advocated for gun violence and that some people should be killed for who they were born as and not their choices getting killed by a gun are not the same thing.
Okay. Is the point of that comment that political assassinations of non-violent people should never happen?
What does Popper mean by “defend a tolerant society”? What do you think people should think when you post that now in a thread about a political murder?
Do you disavow the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Do you think it was immoral?
There is a difference between not tolerating intolerance and actively calling for the killing of / celebrating the death of an intolerant person.
deleted by creator
He did not support gun violence. Just blatant bad faith.
He did support gun violence, wasn’t his whole motif the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and armed guards in schools to prevent mass shootings? That’s clearly advocating for gun violence to avoid the obvious solution of better gun control regulations. He was willing to accept violent gun deaths in support of his 2a position.
Using that logic, everyone who supports cops or the military using guns is a supporter of gun violence, and anyone who supports physical self-defense is a supporter of violence. Makes the notion of “supporting violence” politically pointless.
Yeah. Everything has a trade-off. I don’t want swimming pools outlawed, so I have to accept that ~350 toddlers are going to drown accidentally in pools every year. That does NOT mean I support toddlers drowning, I just tolerate it as a cost. It’s not like Kirk wanted deaths from gun violence.