Theoretically Debatable

SunderlandAFC wrote:

I agree. She killed 3 kids because she couldn't be bothered. People like that need the death sentence. Is there anyone here who actually disagrees with me? I genuinely so badly want to refute you.

People who defend that woman genuinely need to be put on a watchlist.

Zynostik wrote:

People who defend that woman genuinely need to be put on a watchlist.

So many people have killed other people in a “state of psychosis” and have NEVER been defended by anyone ever.

Zynostik wrote:

He never even defended gun violence. In the very same clip, you can hear him explicitly say that we should still have a “reductionist view of gun violence,” making it abundantly clear that he believed gun deaths should be reduced as much as realistically possible. (Because they're obviously awful).

However, his point was that getting gun deaths all the way down to zero while also simultaneously maintaining an armed citizenry was just way too unrealistic & utopian. Some people are bound to misuse their freedoms. But he believed that anyone wanting to eliminate the 2nd Amendment in pursuit of truly getting to "zero gun deaths" would actually impose a greater cost by sacrificing a very fundamental constitutional liberty. Can't get any more clear than that.

And one of the comparisons he used to put this logic into perspective was driving. Roughly 45,000 of Americans die in motor-vehicle crashes every year (3x more deaths than those who die from gun violence, mind you). In theory, we could easily prevent those deaths by just completely banning people from driving altogether. Well... then why haven't we done that? Why aren't there people mass protesting for banning cars? Because we, as a society, have quietly decided that the enormous benefit & liberty that comes with having vehicles (mobility, speed, transportation of people, products, services, etc.) justify accepting some of the unavoidable risk that comes with their use. Should we still find ways to reduce the car deaths? Yes. But are we ever going to reach a point where zero people ever die from car accidents? Highly unlikely.

So I don't know how people still manage to mischaracterize & demonize Kirk when the full context of his quotes are all out there, but I felt this was worth clarifying nonetheless.

Anyways, carry on...

thanks for the correction (deadass i'm not tryna be passive aggressive or whatever)
I think that statement I made wasn't very reflective of my gun opinions and I probably agree with you on a lot of things gun related
the liberals who consistently push anti gun policies usually have no idea how a gun works or have any idea why anyone would want one, despite there being multiple good reasons (namely self defense and tyrannical government)
I don't think they understand that banning guns will never happen because of the sizable portion who wants them and that there are better solutions to gun violence that don't infringe on your constitutional rights (like ending private gun sales to solve lack of background checks, having free and accessible healthcare and therapy to combat the high suicide by gun rates, and lifting people out of poverty to lower violent crime all together)
guns are probably where i have my most "conservative" opinions (probably because of the black panthers)
if you have a resist sign in your yard and are advocating for banning guns, I think you're stupid

Ordelia wrote:

ok true that didn’t really make sense, ig I just mean I don’t know if it’s something morally wrong but it’s weird as you’re family

Why does being family inherently make it “weird”?

Ordelia wrote:

+ you have the same grandma and grandpa..

So?

Deciphered wrote:

Why does being family inherently make it “weird”?
So?

uhhh because.. you’re relatives, you share 12.5% DNA as first cousins, you have the same family members on that side of the family, not sure what else to say. Would you not be weirded out if you had two first cousins (who were also first cousins to each other) who were dating? “So?” So.. idrk what to say. That’s a very close relationship so it is very strange. In the perspective of the grandparent two of your grandkids are together. Also your mother and father in law would be your aunt and uncle lol

Alstratzkon wrote:

I think you're stupid

Woah saying ableist slurs now (according to some of the STUPID mods in the r/anarchism subreddit anyway)

Ordelia wrote:

uhhh because.. you’re relatives, you share 12.5% DNA as first cousins, you have the same family members on that side of the family, not sure what else to say. Would you not be weirded out if you had two first cousins (who were also first cousins to each other) who were dating? “So?” So.. idrk what to say. That’s a very close relationship so it is very strange. In the perspective of the grandparent two of your grandkids are together

Circular reasoning, “Being with your cousins is weird because they’re your cousins”

Alstratzkon wrote:

thanks for the correction (deadass i'm not tryna be passive aggressive or whatever)
I think that statement I made wasn't very reflective of my gun opinions and I probably agree with you on a lot of things gun related
the liberals who consistently push anti gun policies usually have no idea how a gun works or have any idea why anyone would want one, despite there being multiple good reasons (namely self defense and tyrannical government)
I don't think they understand that banning guns will never happen because of the sizable portion who wants them and that there are better solutions to gun violence that don't infringe on your constitutional rights (like ending private gun sales to solve lack of background checks, having free and accessible healthcare and therapy to combat the high suicide by gun rates, and lifting people out of poverty to lower violent crime all together)
guns are probably where i have my most "conservative" opinions (probably because of the black panthers)
if you have a resist sign in your yard and are advocating for banning guns, I think you're stupid

Of course. And I wasn't trying to be aggressive either, incase I gave off that impression as well. I simply wanted to provide context for what's been a consistently huge issue whenever Charlie Kirk's name is brought up.

He's far from perfect & far from being the "best" debater, but I find it to be a bit nonsensical whenever people try to character assassinate him by taking out of context stuff he has said in the past & perhaps worded poorly. Kirk was really just your typical moderate conservative. He was hardly as extreme in his beliefs & debates compared to someone like Nick Fuentes.

As for the rest of your comment, I agree in some parts. Usually the people who are the most anti-gun are definitely the same people who know the least about guns. I've spoken to a lot who've not only never fired one before, but didn't even know the difference between a full-auto & a semi-auto. And that presents a huge problem when they want to try to push legislation on something they actually know next to nothing about.

Not sure what ending private gun sales would accomplish though. It would be practically unenforceable. I have the gun, you have the money, we exchange money for gun, & then part ways. How does anyone else know it was privately sold illegally? There are already hundreds of millions of guns in the United States that have been bought, sold & traded without any records kept. Their serial numbers become useless. The government doesn't know who now owns them or where they are. And that's just the legal ones. How are they going to find & regulate the ones that criminal gangs have bought & sold illegally? Sort of seems like the classic example of trying to shut the barn doors after the horses are already gone. I'm not exactly sure that proposal would be worth looking into at this point.

Not to mention there's also just a basic private-property concern here. Because if I lawfully purchased a firearm, legally possess it, & you are another law-abiding adult who can legally possess it too, what grounds does the government have to outright prohibit me from selling my own property to you?

I'd much rather look into some type of system that allows a private seller to verify whether someone else is legally eligible to possess one, as opposed to simply telling millions of lawful gun owners that they're no longer allowed to privately sell their own property to another lawful adult. But that's just me.

Oh, & not to mention better enforcing the current existing gun laws that we already have in place.

Alstratzkon wrote:

thanks for the correction (deadass i'm not tryna be passive aggressive or whatever)
I think that statement I made wasn't very reflective of my gun opinions and I probably agree with you on a lot of things gun related
the liberals who consistently push anti gun policies usually have no idea how a gun works or have any idea why anyone would want one, despite there being multiple good reasons (namely self defense and tyrannical government)
I don't think they understand that banning guns will never happen because of the sizable portion who wants them and that there are better solutions to gun violence that don't infringe on your constitutional rights (like ending private gun sales to solve lack of background checks, having free and accessible healthcare and therapy to combat the high suicide by gun rates, and lifting people out of poverty to lower violent crime all together)
guns are probably where i have my most "conservative" opinions (probably because of the black panthers)
if you have a resist sign in your yard and are advocating for banning guns, I think you're stupid

Actually, I agree with this.

Deciphered wrote:

The idea that first cousin parents have a high chance of birthing children with abnormalities is largely blown out of proportion and heavily over-exaggerated. The risk is only slightly higher than in non-related parents

Correcto