Transcript of Kirk's killer's messages has been revealed

[Bradskii]

There's a big difference between saying:
"Sorry Kevin, but I don't agree with that, I think what you're actually dealing with is a mental health issue, and I'm not going to be an active participant in this"

...vs someone saying
"We need to eugenically eliminate Kevin and everyone like Kevin"

Oh boy. You've really missed out on comments that some in this forum have made. And this on a moderated Christian forum. Comments which if said in a bar would have had security being called. Some of those people are on permanent ignore. The comments made so angry that I can't trust myself to say anything to them.

 

[rjs330]

If you don't accept the reality that's is us vs. them then you just have your head in the sand.

Are you aware that Newsom is the leading contender to be the next Democrat presidential candidate? Smart move on his part.

Newsome was correct.

 

[Chesterton]

Newsome was correct.

Of course, because he was reading from our script, that being the script of human decency.

 

[Bradskii]

If you don't accept the reality that's is us vs. them then you just have your head in the sand.

Finding common ground is always a good thing. It always improves matters. But the 'us and them' doesn't, and mustn't include people who use violence as a means to an end.

Are you aware that Newsom is the leading contender to be the next Democrat presidential candidate? Smart move on his part.

I really am sorry that you actually thought that he was being self serving when he said what all reasonable people should have said.

That's an ugly view of the world you have there.

 

[Chesterton]

Finding common ground is always a good thing. It always improves matters.

I do not want common ground with evil.

But the 'us and them' doesn't, and mustn't include people who use violence as a means to an end.

Obviously I don't know what media content you consume (as the kids say), and I don't know if you're aware of the extent of what's gone on in America over the last week, beginning even when Kirk's blood had barely stopped gushing.

I really am sorry that you actually thought that he was being self serving when he said what all reasonable people should have said.

That's an ugly view of the world you have there.

I'm not saying he didn't mean any of it. There is a nice online discussion between him and Kirk from awhile back. But it can possibly be discounted a bit as self-serving.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

This shows a complete ignorance of transgenderism and debate around sex assigned at birth. Everyone acknowledges that there are birth defects including chromosomal issues that create defects in the body. No one and I mean NO ONE is arguing differently.

We are talking about TRANSGENDERISM and sex at birth. No argument from the transgender crowd has claimed that xxy xxx people are transgendered. The claim is xx and xy are. That they are actually the opposite sex inside.

Doctors are well aware that chromosomal abnormalities can exist. Everyone does. In regard to transgenderism it is an irrelevant concept. There are ONLY TWO a sexes. There are not three or four. No one has identified a third sex. There is male and female. Thats it. And the fact that there can be an abnormality or defect doesn't change that. Just like we can say humans walk upright or have two arms and two eyes. A child born with only one arm doesn't make them something else.

And unless you want to try and make a claim that transgendered people have a chromsomal abnormality in regard to their sex then any point you are trying to.make is moot.

Apparently people with down syndrome are intersexed transgenders now.

 

[Bradskii]

I do not want common ground with evil.

That's because violence should never be that common ground. Being actively against violence should be.

Obviously I don't know what media content you consume (as the kids say), and I don't know if you're aware of the extent of what's gone on in America over the last week, beginning even when Kirk's blood had barely stopped gushing.

Anyone who supports or celebrates violence should be excluded from the 'us and them'. Neither of us wants to include them as being representative of our views, however disparate those views might be.

I'm not saying he didn't mean any of it. There is a nice online discussion between him and Kirk from awhile back. But it can possibly be discounted a bit as self-serving.

Sometimes people that you don't generally agree with, people you consider to be the opposition sometimes say the right thing for the right reason. Sometimes you have to agree with them.

There are people when everything they say is out of the corner of their mouth. When it's nothing but lies and self serving dross. Gee, I can't actually think of anyone like that right now...maybe you'd have someone in mind. But Newsom isn't that guy.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Finding common ground is always a good thing. It always improves matters.

How do you find common ground with people who want you dead and will cheer when you are shot in front of your children? We are past that.

 

[Bradskii]

How do you find common ground with people who want you dead and will cheer when you are shot in front of your children? We are past that.

Why are you asking questions that have already been answered?

There is no common ground that we have with left wing or right wing people who endorse or celebrate violence. You want to exclude them. I want to exclude them. So that is our common ground.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

'He was one of yours!'
'Oh no he wasn't. He must be one of yours!'

These are quite pathetic arguments.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that "determining fault" is often used as a precursor to advancing policy.

 

[Bradskii]

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that "determining fault" is often used as a precursor to advancing policy.

I have no idea what that means or how it could be relevant.

 

[Chesterton]

Anyone who supports or celebrates violence should be excluded from the 'us and them'. Neither of us wants to include them as being representative of our views, however disparate those views might be.

But the people who support violence are the "them" I'm talking about.

Sometimes people that you don't generally agree with, people you consider to be the opposition sometimes say the right thing for the right reason. Sometimes you have to agree with them.

I didn't say I disagreed.

There are people when everything they say is out of the corner of their mouth. When it's nothing but lies and self serving dross. Gee, I can't actually think of anyone like that right now...maybe you'd have someone in mind. But Newsom isn't that guy.

I can think of someone - @MehGuy

 

[Bradskii]

But the people who support violence are the "them" I'm talking about.

When I say 'us and them' I mean you and me. People like you and me. Those of us who don't support violence or celebrate it. Those of us who don't shoot people or break into the Capitol or excuse those who do.

I can think of someone...

Me too. Trabaja in la casa blanca.

 

[Chesterton]

When I say 'us and them' I mean you and me. People like you and me. Those of us who don't support violence or celebrate it. Those of us who don't shoot people or break into the Capitol or excuse those who do.

You are I are irrelevant, up to the point where "them" forces us to take up arms. At that point, you need to pick a side.

Me too. Trabaja in la casa blanca.

You neglected to capitalize the first letters of casa and blanca. That doesn't narrow it down much. There's probably millions of white houses in America.

Plus, have you ever seen me insult your Prime Minister? You foreigners are so uncouth and boorish. smh

 

[MehGuy]

I can think of someone - @MehGuy

You think I speak out of the corner of my mouth? I believe there are non-shallow reasons and a whole host of other different reasons people may at times speak from the corner of their mouth.

For shallower ones.

The idea of myself needing to be more authentic and honest has been on my mind lately. Although I believe everyone speaks out of the corner of their mouth's to some extent.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I have no idea what that means or how it could be relevant.

It means that when a tragedy of some sort happens, partisan actors will attribute blame to something, in order to advance a policy they'd already been wanting to advance anyway, using the tragedy as justification for it.

I can provide examples of that pattern going in both directions if you'd like?

Perhaps it's not as common in Aussie politics, but it's pretty much a staple of US politics.

One example that stands out is Hurricane Katrina (and the aftermath)

Democrats attributed the blame to not enough federal funding coming in (IE: raising federal taxes)
Republicans attributed the blame to the inefficiency of federal government programs, and why deregulation needed to occur to allow for more privatization and localization of emergency response management (IE: lowering federal taxes)

Even something as big and sweeping as covid.
Democrats used it to argue that we need to increase public health funding
Republicans used to as a basis for why "we need to get tough on China"
-- and then drifted into a broader conversations about how much power academia should have in dictating how policy is shaped.

 

[Bradskii]

You are I are irrelevant, up to the point where "them" forces us to take up arms. At that point, you need to pick a side.

Which is why we both should avoid any suggestion that political violence is acceptable. So we don't get to that point. In passing, have you seen the film 'Civil War'? Civil War (2024) ⭐ 7.0 | Action, Thriller

Watching it made me think that it was an all too real possibility. An absolutely chilling film. Strongly recommended.

You neglected to capitalize the first letters of casa and blanca. That doesn't narrow it down much. There's probably millions of white houses in America.

I didn't want to be too obvious...

Plus, have you ever seen me insult your Prime Minister?

Leave that to me. When he does something wrong, I'm first in line to criticise him. I'm a big supporter of his, but he got both barrels from me for this: Pacific Media Barred from Australian PM Albanese Press Conference at PIF Meeting

'Australian officials barred all Pacific Island journalists from covering a press conference by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during the 54th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting in Honiara, Solomon Islands, on Wednesday. The decision sparked frustration among regional media representatives, who criticized the move as a setback for press freedom in the Pacific.'

We're still waiting to hear what logic could have possibly been behind it. An outrageous restriction on freedom of the press.

 

[Bradskii]

It means that when a tragedy of some sort happens, partisan actors will attribute blame to something, in order to advance a policy they'd already been wanting to advance anyway, using the tragedy as justification for it.

OK, yes. I agree. Although you originally said 'attributing fault', which I think is quite reasonable. If some act or policy has a negative impact then you want to find out who is responsible. Whose fault it was. And you'd need some evidence for your conclusion. But blame...well, yes - there's a lot of that being thrown about based simply on opinion. And using a tragedy as the basis for it is not a good look. Whichever side of the political divide is doing it.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I didn't say anything about gender.

Ok, to me man and woman are genders.

 

[FireDragon76]

DNA tests are pretty accurate dont you think? Kinda hard to get it wrong. But again, on those rare occasions, the doctor will make the decision based on a medical diagnosis, not because how the child was feeling that day. Now, back to reality.

That's a bad argument based on a kind of genetic reductionism that medical science itself doesn't even recognize. There are plenty of conditions where genetics don't match phenotypical expression of a given characteristic.