Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#5,827
#5,827
n_huffhines said:
He said "prove me wrong" all the time. It wasn't just a name of the show. He would make a statement and then say, "prove me wrong" as his catch-phrase. A logical fallacy was literally his brand.

You can justify this however you want, but I am delivering the message that this is a logical fallacy. If this bothers you, go write a novel to somebody who cares about why you think it's OK this time.
Click to expand...
3x3=13. Prove me wrong. The US shouldn't send equipment to Ukraine. Prove me wrong.

See? Saying prove me wrong doesn't equate a logical fallacy if someone is actually incorrect or makes a declarative statement. It invites discourse. You're taking things waay too literally.
 
#5,828
#5,828
n_huffhines said:
He said "prove me wrong" all the time. It wasn't just a name of the show. He would make a statement and then say, "prove me wrong" as his catch-phrase. A logical fallacy was literally his brand.

You can justify this however you want, but I am delivering the message that this is a logical fallacy. If this bothers you, go write a novel to somebody who cares about why you think it's OK this time.
Click to expand...
Those poor kids, not smart enough to know they were playing a rigged game. Might make one call their judgement into question.
 
#5,831
#5,831
midnight orange said:
I meant church absenteeism…changed original post
Click to expand...
Ah sorry, like I said late to the party. Imagine though, if a state paid all fed expenses for Reps and Senators and then made both state and fed show up to all sessions or forfeit their salaries plus expenses. Have a for cause replacement for inattendance or disruption. I think quick changes would happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, LouderVol and midnight orange
#5,832
#5,832
TheDeeble said:
3x3=13. Prove me wrong. The US shouldn't send troops to Ukraine. Prove me wrong.

See? Saying prove me wrong doesn't equate a logical fallacy if someone is actually incorrect or makes a declarative statement. It invites discourse. You're taking things waay too literally.
Click to expand...

3x3=13 can be disproven with a positive argument, meaning this is verifiable. The latter is a normative argument, meaning it is not verifiable. It's just an opinion. The fact that you don't understand the difference indicates that it was probably easy for Charlie to trick you.

Edit: I can say 3x3=13 to my 4 YO and I win the debate because he can't prove me wrong. Are you starting to see the problem? I can argue 3x3=9 and I don't need to say "prove me wrong" because I can prove it myself. Are you starting to see the problem?
 
Last edited:
#5,836
#5,836
appvol said:
Be interesting to see how this turns out

Click to expand...

If that group behind this, and the statements about it is true, it's no wonder the left has been so actively trying to divert attention from the left.

It would be a terrorist organization with ties to Democratic Socialists of America, being trained in terrorism and revolutionary tactics by the communists in Cuba. Heck, even if they weren't behind this, it would still be a link between the Democratic Socialists and radical left wing terrorism.

For those who didn't click the X link:

1758041655390.png

The video:

 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#5,837
#5,837
marcusluvsvols said:
No...it isn't. Its a damn lie, but it isn't hate speech whatever that is. As far as the government is concerned, whatever this B is calling "hate speech" is actually just free speech unless it contains threats or incites riots/violence.

We are not the UK. We have the 1A....you're still a Leftist dishrag for calling an honorable murder victim a bigot when he is no longer here to completely destroy you in a debate.
Click to expand...
I refer you to the earlier posted comments that show he was.
 
#5,840
#5,840
n_huffhines said:
3x3=13 can be disproven with a positive argument, meaning this is verifiable. The latter is a normative argument, meaning it is not verifiable. It's just an opinion. The fact that you don't understand the difference indicates that it was probably easy for Charlie to trick you.

Edit: I can say 3x3=13 to my 4 YO and I win the debate because he can't prove me wrong. Are you starting to see the problem? I can argue 3x3=9 and I don't need to say "prove me wrong" because I can prove it myself. Are you starting to see the problem?
Click to expand...
College students aren't 4 year olds. They are voters that influence the future of this country.

Sure I understand the difference. One was incorrect and the other was just a statement. I indicated as much in the post. But you are right and you kind of get it now I think. It's just an opinion. Nobody is actually being proven right or wrong. It's an exchange of ideas. He had opinions and had a discourse/debate with someone that may have agreed or disagreed. He made himself available to talk to college students and took questions on any subject someone wanted to talk about. They walk up and ask him a question or make a statement that he can agree or disagree with. It's the same thing happening in this forum and everywhere else around the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, marcusluvsvols, CobbVol and 1 other person
#5,843
#5,843
InVOLuntary said:
It was a poll dude. You need to accept the fact your party is the party of violence.
Click to expand...
The events at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,of which there is substantial video documentation, seem inconvenient to the belief that only one party is responsible for politically motivated violence in this country.

There is also the fact that those acts of violence/vandalism have been persistently denied by those on the right, especially on this forum.
 
#5,845
#5,845
TheDeeble said:
College students aren't 4 year olds. They are voters that influence the future of this country.

But you are right and you kind of get it now I think. It's just an opinion. Nobody is actually being proven right or wrong. It's an exchange of ideas. He had opinions and had a discourse/debate with someone that may have agreed or disagreed. He made himself available to talk to college students and took questions on any subject someone wanted to talk about. They walk up and ask him a question or make a statement that he can agree or disagree with. It's the same thing happening in this forum and everyone else around the world.
Click to expand...

Of course they're not 4 year olds. I used an extreme example to illustrate the point.

The implication that it would be OK to use this trick on college kids simply because they're older is not something I agree with. I don't want my leading minds to be tricking anybody. I want them to win the argument by having the best argument. I don't want them to win at any cost just because I agree with them. Again, I'm not out to recruit people to my side. I am in pursuit of the best ideas. May the best ideas win. It's much harder to get there by arguing in bad faith of which I am guilty of doing at times, too. We all are. But that was CK's thing and not only was it his thing, he turned into a mogul doing this. It's crazy to call it out and have people pretend that's not what it is. No. Just own what it is.
 
#5,846
#5,846
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#5,848
#5,848
The folks crying that it was unfair for Charlie to debated college students sounds really odd to me.

Is it unfair to have radical liberal professors indoctrinate them into an ideology? Is it more fair to have them "defenseless" against their professors? They are happy enough to have adults instruct them how to think. But if a conservative uses a catch phrase to invite them into dialog, the oh lordy... Call in the Calvary! They never had a chance!


And if he starts getting really popular on campuses, call in the snipers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, appvol and InVOLuntary
#5,850
#5,850
n_huffhines said:
I get that you like that he's out there recruiting soldiers to your cause, but I see so many in here praising his method of debate, and he used cheap parlor tricks. We want better discourse in this country. He influenced a generation of kids who think this is how you engage.

His whole schtick was "prove me wrong." It's called the burden of proof fallacy. Everything he says starts with that premise, and this is out of bounds because it's generally hard to prove a negative. It's crazy that a whole country can look at this "prove me wrong" method and not immediately see the problem with it. It's right there in the name. He was telling us what he was doing before he did it. We are stupid.
Click to expand...

His catch phrase was your problem with how he engaged others? It seems like he’s saying “prove me wrong” as a way of inciting debate.

Claiming that’s “out of bounds” is a complete joke. Out of bounds are the people praising his death. Not the man inviting others to debate ideas
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, CobbVol, Orange_Crush and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top