Erika Kirk Delivers Powerful National Address, Says Movement Will Not Die

RocksInMyHead said:

Please, enlighten me.

Click to expand...

You would need to watch or listen to Kirk's long form videos and podcasts to get good understanding of what he said. Taking snippets out of context is never a good idea.

Vambram said:

You would need to watch or listen to Kirk's long form videos and podcasts to get good understanding of what he said. Taking snippets out of context is never a good idea.

Click to expand...

I've watched enough of the content related to each clip to feel like I've got a pretty good grasp of the context. So, again, please enlighten me. If you think I've misunderstood, please explain the context that clarifies those quotes.

FireDragon76 said:

That's dehumanizing rhetoric meant to be dismissive. It's also an anti-intellectual move.

There isn't one universal ideal of reason- Aristotilian syllogistic reasoning is just one logical system of many. And rejection of essentialist metaphysics, which is common in actual leftist discourse, isn't unheard of in traditional, non-western cultures, either. So really what you are talking about as defining "rationality" is hardly universal in scope, it's tied to a particular time and place.

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect.

Click to expand...

Effectively saying “nah-ah” to a considered and reasoned post isn’t debate.
Explain to us (all) why it is “incorrect”.
Thanks.

Vambram said:

Your opinion and beliefs about what you think Charlie Kirk said are based upon taking some words, phrases, and sentences of his out of context, big time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, someone just tried this in another thread regarding his comment about accepting gun deaths as the price to pay to maintain your right to keep a couple of dozen weapons at home.

The comment on its own comes over as being utterly thoughtless and frankly horrific. But hey, you gotta check the context, dude!

So we all did and now we find that it's still utterly thoughtless and horrific but we can also see the completely fatuous reasoning he used to make it.

Pommer said:

Effectively saying “nah-ah” to a considered and reasoned post isn’t debate.
Explain to us (all) why it is “incorrect”.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology. Radical progressive left wing liberals routinely reject what God says in the Bible.

Bradskii said:

Yeah, someone just tried this in another thread regarding his comment about accepting gun deaths as the price to pay to maintain your right to keep a couple of dozen weapons at home.

The comment on its own comes over as being utterly thoughtless and frankly horrific. But hey, you gotta check the context, dude!

So we all did and now we find that it's still utterly thoughtless and horrific but we can also see the completely fatuous reasoning he used to make it.

And in reference to context, you might find that his own YouTube channel frequently posts short, edited clips from his debates to show him in the best possible light, cutting out the parts showing him agitated, angry, confused, insulting and being proved factually incorrect.

Click to expand...

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

Vambram said:

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

Click to expand...

The explanation of why he said what he did about the price he was prepared to pay in lives to have the second amendment was fully contextualised. It was almost an adolescent fantasy about standing up to the government. And he literally meant an armed defence of the people against the best equipped army on the planet to prevent them taking your guns.

Notwithstanding that hardly anyone at all argues against the second. What they argue about are having reasonable checks on who can buy weapons and how they are registered etc. He was saying that he doesn't even want guns registered because....well, 'they' may come and knock on your door and ask you to hand them over.

It's not possible for me to explain to you how absolutely crazy that is.

Now I don't know if you've seen video of his shooting. Almost all media have paused the actual moment or have pixilated it. Why? Because watching someone in close up getting shot in the neck is very confronting. Yeah, we see all sots of detailed fictional horror on the big screen and on TV. But I've seen the unexpurgated version. And when you know it's for real and you see how much blood a body can expel in a couple of seconds then it's very distressing. Now instead of a well built grown man consider it happening to a five year old girl. You would have to be less than human not to demand changes to gun laws if you were to see it.

So we have the reality of the horror versus this American macho posturing when the only way they'll take your gun is from your cold dead hands. What some channel needs the cojones to do is to show somebody spouting that puerile adolescent rhetoric and then pan left to watch a young kid taking the same shot as Kirk did. Slow fade to a question: 'Is this the price you want to pay?'

Bradskii said:

The explanation of why he said what he did about the price he was prepared to pay in lives to have the second amendment was fully contextualised. It was almost an adolescent fantasy about standing up to the government. And he literally meant an armed defence of the people against the best equipped army on the planet to prevent them taking your guns.

Notwithstanding that hardly anyone at all argues against the second. What they argue about are having reasonable checks on who can buy weapons and how they are registered etc. He was saying that he doesn't even want guns registered because....well, 'they' may come and knock on your door and ask you to hand them over.

It's not possible for me to explain to you how absolutely crazy that is.

Now I don't know if you've seen video of his shooting. Almost all media have paused the actual moment or have pixilated it. Why? Because watching someone in close up getting shot in the neck is very confronting. Yeah, we see all sots of detailed fictional horror on the big screen and on TV. But I've seen the unexpurgated version. And when you know it's for real and you see how much blood a body can expel in a couple of seconds then it's very distressing. Now instead of a well built grown man consider it happening to a five year old girl. You would have to be less than human not to demand changes to gun laws if you were to see it.

So we have the reality of the horror versus this American macho posturing when the only way they'll take your gun is from your cold dead hands. What some channel needs the cojones to do is to show somebody spouting that puerile adolescent rhetoric and then pan left to watch a young kid taking the same shot as Kirk did. Slow fade to a question: 'Is this the price you want to pay?'

Click to expand...

Your negative criticism about what Charlie Kirk’s beliefs are concerning the 2nd Amendment don't coincide with what he really said and believed.

Vambram said:

Your negative criticism about what Charlie Kirk’s beliefs are concerning the 2nd Amendment don't coincide with what he really said and believed.

Click to expand...

This wasn't based on someone's opinion of what he might have believed. Not some Youtube warrior assuming that it's what he meant. It's based on exactly what he said.


"So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

Vambram said:

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology. Radical progressive left wing liberals routinely reject what God says in the Bible.

Click to expand...

“Good” sez I, what of it?

Vambram said:

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology.

Click to expand...

No there isn't. Jesus was pretty much on point about how we should live. But His Father? You are kidding me. The only people who believe that the sum total of His word represents one rational, undeniable, coherent and unchanging moral handbook are a small minority of Christians. You see people in this forum arguing theological points constantly.

And Christ didn't design things so that half of all life needs to eat the other half to live. He didn't drown the whole planet, including the elderly, babes in arms, babes in the womb for heaven's sake, order the killing of entire nations including the children (but hey, keep the women). You'll have Christians from all points of the compass arguing with you that none of that, and a lot more beside, is a rational ideology. That it represents a fundamentalist view of God.

Vambram said:

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

Click to expand...

If I have to listen to hours of content in order to "properly" contextualize a few sentences (rather than simply the full conversation in which those sentences were said), then the speaker must not be very good at expressing himself. And that's not an accusation that I'd level against Charlie Kirk.