You mean, that's what Charlie Kirk's logic leads to.
lol so I will go back to the same logic. It was ok to murder Kirk because he called for his own murder. He said words that people could use to justify murder. That still don't justify murder. I think you ought to think about where this leads.
I never said that. Trump did.
Thats not the point. Its in using that to actually murder someone. Not the words but the actual putting into reality murder based on those words. Which by the way as I mentioned are often misrepresented and out of the context from what was originally said.
You can quibble about what was really meant but the fact that it is a subjective determination and basis based about peoples personal beliefs and persuations its a dangerous basis for determining murder.
In fact its no basis for the very fact its a subjective basis.
But he did say some murders are acceptable.
Yes but not to allow murder. Not to condone it. It was a statement of fact as to the US constitution on the right to bear arms. Like most of what he and Trump said is twisted into something else I think. We have seen this often. \
Like how Kirk was labelled a Nazi and supporting Nazis and facism when this was a group outside their meetings who were banned and Kirk wanted nothing to do with them. Yet the lie he was supporting Nazis was pushed. Same with Trump.
But anyway I don't want to get into the specific examples but rather to point out no matter what and even if some percieves others of saying murder is ok. It still doesn't make murder ok. Kirk was murdered for his words, opinions, beliefs.
If we are going to use that as the basis it is a dangerous and destructive precedent. Like I said this whole thing is subjective, about beliefs and opinions themselves.
If, as he claimed, some murders are acceptable, which ones are not?
He was not specifying and thats the point because it was a general statement about the constitution. That murders will happen in upholding that constitutional right. Not which ones are ok or not. Rather that murders will happen and are acceptable to happen if the constitution is to be upheld.
But nevertheless its still not the point. The fact you asked which murders are acceptabl;e shows this is subjective, a matter of belief and opinion. We already know that there is a polarisation of opinion and belief on the Left and Right. That tells us there is a high risk of bias on both sides.
So regardless of the wrong and right of it this is not a good basis to claim or even suggest that some murders are ok full stop. To speak like this is dangerous itself. That is the point and that is what has been happening and fueling this all along.
Ok I thought you said that Kirk was saying its OK to murder others so that contributed to his murder. Maybe I missunderstood you. Let me asked, did Kirk deserve to be murdered. Was his death murder. Is the person responsible accountable to murder.
Then why did Charlie Kirk claim some murders are acceptable?
I explained that above. But look at this logic another way. Kirk represented the majority beliefs in the conservatives. Do you really think as a Christian man who lived a good life by example and engaged with opposing views and even hateful ones that actually spoke vicious bile at him would support him if he was saying its actually ok to murder anyone.
If we go by this logic then there are many many many people speaking words that people percieve as saying murder is ok and so every murder is ok. Its a crazy mentality in the first place to even attribute to others in reality.
The only thing left is to figure out which ones, and why. He didn't specify any exceptions. What should we conclude from that?
I think you are making it that way. That we have to in the first place work out which murders are ok or not is the problem. Murder is not ok full stop. Murdering someone for what they say is not ok fullstop.
Murdering is not ok because you percieve someone said something that they deserve to be murdered for or said that was taken as making murder ok. Murder, is murder, is murder is murder. No matter which way you spin it.
Unless the person was threatening physically your family or nation to murder them and in self defense there is no justification for going into your neighbours house or up to them in public and murdering them for what you percieve they have said is wrong.
Saying that someone deserves murder because someone percieves they said it was ok to murder is still murder. Its not the fault of the person. If it was then we would have bodies 10 high in the streets of people others thought they said it was ok to muder others.
In fact we now know that the murderer was mentally ill and radicalised. There could have been any number of reasons. But one thing we know is he dispised Kirk to the point of delusion that he wanted to kill him and shut hom up for good. Hate is dangerous. Even holding anger in the heart leads to murder. Not because of anything but the hate and anger festering in the heart and mind.
His mental state was not able to reason and see his actions for the reality they were. Which was murdering someone because they did not like what they said or represented in their confused mind. Something I have heard very little about.
Rather its all about Kirk. The sad thing is I think an important legacy of Kirk is being overlooked. That he actually lived the opposite in love in engaging with his haters to connect and bridge the division gap even if that meant losing his life.
