Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#6,701
#6,701
BartW said:
Sorry this feels like a million news cycles ago. But I was referencing early reports from the Guardian that he was leftist (the source was a supposed friend or classmate who was discredited) and by the WSJ that the bullets were engraved with trans ideology
Click to expand...

hadn't seen that so I looked it up. I'm still trying to figure out what the Guardian is trying to say here:

This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship.

the source is verified but can't remember details of their relationship? what details? Are they saying the source isn't credible (though verified) or that the source changed their answers or something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#6,703
#6,703
Orange_Crush said:
So that child abuse is objectively wrong, independent of any opinion. No matter if lots of people believe it today, as you point out. Or if no one believed it, and everyone was raping, killing, and eating two year olds. Yes?

If so, what is the source of this objective morality?

(It is confusing because you seem to be saying different things that seem to be inconsistent. The fact that slavery was less wrong when it was accepted than it is wrong today, now that opinions have changed. Is that one of the "wrongs" that is not 'actually' wrong, just subjectively wrong? It must be if it changed with opinion.

If everyone was raping, killing, and eating toddlers, would that too be less wrong then than it is now with nearly everyone's agreement? And would it be wrong in a remote jungle tribe that raped, killed and ate toddlers?)

If so, why?



Yes. I believe you said that you believe that there is an objective truth. A really real, independent of anyone's perception or opinion. If that is the case, how can you know that you know it? What makes you believe that you can correctly know and perceive it?
Click to expand...
I think the fact that 99.999% believe it to be wrong is critically important.
I do not believe it is possible for there to be an objective truth (however you define that) that 99.999% of the people disagree with.

I said I could go along using your definition with "anyone" but not using your definition with "everyone".

To use your definition with "anyone" would necessarily mean an objective truth is what any one individual believes it to be.
Ultimately every one would be operating with their own personal set of objective truths.
 
#6,704
#6,704
KB5252 said:
I disagree completely, it's called normalization. Things tend to become standardized and applicable across districts school boards over time.

And while I'd concede at least some of the obsession is over the top, to pretend parents shouldn't care or concern themselves at all is an even more ridiculous position than obsession over it.

Parents should never be shut out of, or short circuited in the development of their children and what they are exposed to. We've conceded way too much to government.
Click to expand...

I take it you show up to school board meetings in places where you don't pay property taxes, or have kids enrolled to protest books in their libraries and such?
 
#6,707
#6,707
BartW said:
Sorry this feels like a million news cycles ago. But I was referencing early reports from the Guardian that he was leftist (the source was a supposed friend or classmate who was discredited) and by the WSJ that the bullets were engraved with trans ideology
Click to expand...
I believe that turned out to just be the brand of ammo manufacturer, TRN or Tauren. It doesn't mean trans. Just something else they put out there to falsely push their narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#6,709
#6,709
luthervol said:
I think the fact that 99.999% believe it to be wrong is critically important.
I do not believe it is possible for there to be an objective truth (however you define that) that 99.999% of the people disagree with.

I said I could go along using your definition with "anyone" but not using your definition with "everyone".

To use your definition with "anyone" would necessarily mean an objective truth is what any one individual believes it to be.
Ultimately every one would be operating with their own personal set of objective truths.
Click to expand...
So you do not believe in an objective morality. Therefore nothing is ever "actually" wrong. Toddler rape feasts are not truly and objectively wrong. It's just a societal agreement. As voters flee the democrat party and flock to the MAGA right, would that be the process of you becoming immoral?


You do believe that there is an objective truth. A true reality, and that you correctly perceive it. Yes?

Why do you believe that you correctly perceive it?
 
#6,711
#6,711
wtmvol said:
@bamawriter suggested that’s because what we’re seeing is a transcription of the original texts, not the actual texts. That does make more sense, but I still believe the roommate was in on it and the texts are a cover for him(her?)
Click to expand...

I think this is at least plausible. But again, don't dismiss how desperate criminals are to tell people about their crimes. Given how perpetually online Robinson appeared to be, I'd be shocked if he spent 36 hours on the lam and didn't tell a bunch of his fellow dweebs.
 
#6,712
#6,712
bamawriter said:
I think this is at least plausible. But again, don't dismiss how desperate criminals are to tell people about their crimes. Given how perpetually online Robinson appeared to be, I'd be shocked if he spent 36 hours on the lam and didn't tell a bunch of his fellow dweebs.
Click to expand...

would they make more sense if they were speech to text, texts?
 
#6,713
#6,713
K-town Vol Fan said:
I believe that turned out to just be the brand of ammo manufacturer, TRN or Tauren. It doesn't mean trans. Just something else they put out there to falsely push their narrative.
Click to expand...

He wrote a phrase about “notices bulges” which is related. He spoke about all the “hate” Kirk spreads. And he’s banging a tranny.

That’s a lot of circumstantial evidence. You don’t think this was related to trans issues at all?
 
#6,714
#6,714
Orange_Crush said:
So you do not believe in an objective morality. Therefore nothing is ever "actually" wrong. Toddler rape feasts are not truly and objectively wrong. It's just a societal agreement. As voters flee the democrat party and flock to the MAGA right, would that be the process of you becoming immoral?


You do believe that there is an objective truth. A true reality, and that you correctly perceive it. Yes?

Why do you believe that you correctly perceive it?
Click to expand...
You're just talking in circles at this point.
Of course there are things that are actually wrong - society dictates that.
I guess a person's true reality is whatever they perceive it to be. The multi-verse of realities.
 
#6,718
#6,718
This may have been brought up, but understand the father of the killer has asked that the reward money go to Charlie's family. If that is incorrect, I regret the error.

If true...wow. Already massive respect for him to turn in his son. He has more principles than every one in Washington D.C. combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, EasternVol, SpaceCoastVol and 3 others
#6,719
#6,719
luthervol said:
You're just talking in circles at this point.
Of course there are things that are actually wrong - society dictates that.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. If societal dictate changed, it would cease to be wrong? If not, why?

luthervol said:
I guess a person's true reality is whatever they perceive it to be. The multi-verse of realities.
Click to expand...

So, you do not believe that there is a single, objectively and independently true reality that you and I have access to, and that you can correctly perceive it? If you believe that there is, and you can, why?
 
#6,720
#6,720
GroverCleveland said:
This may have been brought up, but understand the father of the killer has asked that the reward money go to Charlie's family. If that is incorrect, I regret the error.

If true...wow. Already massive respect for him to turn in his son. He has more principles than every one in Washington D.C. combined.
Click to expand...

Would be tempting to use the money to move
 
  • Like
Reactions: apevol
#6,722
#6,722
Smokey123 said:
Why did Charlie call her views on Israel demonic just last month? Why have they not appeared in any public setting or podcast in over a year? Why did Charlie say he won’t debate her on Israel but has no problem inviting others (like Dave smith) talk about Israel on his platforms? Why was she not at the memorial for him and not set to be a speaker at his funeral?

They were close. Recent history suggests other wise and the way she’s using this death is disrespectful
Click to expand...
I've seen a couple of things of hers recently and she's talking like they were best friends, but I have to admit I got the feeling in listening to her there was a disconnect. She was kind of rambling and all over the place. I gave up watching.
 
#6,723
#6,723
volinbham said:
hadn't seen that so I looked it up. I'm still trying to figure out what the Guardian is trying to say here:

This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship.

the source is verified but can't remember details of their relationship? what details? Are they saying the source isn't credible (though verified) or that the source changed their answers or something else.
Click to expand...
Yeah that note is poorly written. My understanding is indeed that they changed the story and couldn’t remember details. What details, I don’t know. I don’t know that the source was ever named so we have no way to independently assess it.

I know the guardian is left wing media so it’s weird that they would rush to publish something like that. And then retract
 
#6,724
#6,724
Orange_Crush said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. If societal dictate changed, it would cease to be wrong? If not, why?



So, you do not believe that there is a single, objectively and independently true reality that you and I have access to, and that you can correctly perceive it? If you believe that there is, and you can, why?
Click to expand...
Sure, what was once wrong can now be okay and what is okay today may at some point be wrong. (but the vast majority of "moral" wrongs have stayed relatively consistent over the millennia. I see no problem with that.

Your second question makes no sense. If you have a point, please go ahead and make it. If not, we can just go with everyone's perceived reality is their actual reality.
 
#6,725
#6,725
marcusluvsvols said:
Trump needs to reinstate the law that Obama struck down in 2012 that was used to hold the media accountable when they knowingly and purposely deceived the public. Rename it the Charlie Kirk Act like that red headed little girl with glasses proposed in the X post previously linked in this thread.

We need some accountability in media. They play a big role in creating hate and division that hurts our country. They are responsible for much of the tribalism and discontent among the people. They can continue to screech all they want but knowingly spreading lies is BS.
Click to expand...
Is Jimmy Kimmel even media though?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top