Charlie Kirk

[firstexp]

1 hour ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

First of all, I suspect we can agree to disagree on a number of things, and that's ok. If we can still talk about them in a civil discourse, we're doing better as a group than much of society at the moment.

For those who know, I'm libertarian and conservative. I'm also staunchly pro-Second Amendment (the gun isn't the issue, the capacity and stability of the person holding it sure is though). Where the far left has gone is looting, rioting, and 'mostly peaceful protests' that have perhaps been "mostly" but certainly not "peaceful". I think the moderates and conservatives this weekend set a good example by coming together in prayer, vigil, and remembrance. We can argue that perhaps, but that means we'd still be talking and having a civil discourse. I'm happy to do that, but I suspect that we won't reach much agreement. Kirk lived his faith, embraced liberty, and carefully studied and debated his topics. And he wasn't afraid to go on campuses where he wasn't always welcomed and engaged in discourse. People like King or Lincoln or Jesus did the same and lived his convictions without fear.

I don't condone violence. I won't celebrate his death. But if the goal of assassinating Kirk was to silence those who disagreed with the radical left, I'll tell you it's had the opposite effect. I'm not going on social media and posting videos of doing the happy dance because someone was killed. But those who are seem to be learning that actions have consequences, and becoming a societal pariah is one of those. Unemployed is another. 

Here we agree. I'm not going to say I agreed 100% with everything Charlie said, especially his views on gays, etc. I'm writing on here, so I accept people as they are and don't expect total conformity. I applaud his conviction despite not always agreeing. 

Keep in mind that a lot of us on the right are very accepting and tolerant, as those who've had those conversations have learned. Including this writer. Hopefully we can exchange views without downvoting or flaming or any other vitriol. As a society, though, we need to get along and cultivate understanding and sanity. 

Peace.

I agree with what you said.
Extremism is to be condemned.
Expressing one's opinions is a right.

"I don't agree with you but I defend your right to say so"

E.B. Hall

[Pozzible]

11 hours ago, hntnhole said:

What was "wisdom" thousands of years ago is, of course, interesting, but we have progressed far beyond those ancient hatreds, haven't we?

Have we, though? I definitely would have agreed with you about a year ago.  Now, not so sure.

[SomewhereonNeptune]

13 hours ago, firstexp said:

I agree with what you said.
Extremism is to be condemned.
Expressing one's opinions is a right.

"I don't agree with you but I defend your right to say so"

E.B. Hall

Thanks @firstexp.

12 hours ago, Pozzible said:

Have we, though? I definitely would have agreed with you about a year ago.  Now, not so sure.

I'm not sure either. I guess seeing the things happening across the board, I fear that we can't converse for all the yelling at each other. 

 

 

[descartes70817]

23 hours ago, hntnhole said:

This truly ancient book (third book in the Old Testament) dates from around 1400 BCE with parts to perhaps as late as the 3rd Century BCE.  

Interesting as a historical collection of documents, it reflects the needs of the then-nomadic Tribes as they wandered the Levant.  

Certainly of historic interest, but relevancy to our modern world is perhaps questionable.  Anyone can reach back into the distant past to find quotations that serve their own interests.  I am certainly not denigrating the value of these ancient beliefs, but we have advanced considerably in our systems of government, our knowledge of science, human sexuality, etc.  

Killing people who are different than ourselves is simply not excusable, and that goes both ways.  What the shooter did is inexcusable, as is excusing hatreds via ancient texts.  What was "wisdom" thousands of years ago is, of course, interesting, but we have progressed far beyond those ancient hatreds, haven't we?

My persona opinion is that Bronze and Iron Age morality, or lack thereof, has no place in modern society.

That said why would a deity need to make any commandment to prevent homosexuality existing? A man can have a wife, get her pregnant every year and still have sex with other men every single day without disobeying the "go forth and multiply" commandment. This leaves me asking "who benefits", from increasing their population, and the answer is "priests and kings/tribal leaders" every single time.

Gods and religions are man-made creations.

[hntnhole]

On 9/15/2025 at 3:11 PM, hntnhole said:

Recent reporting in the major media has it that the murderer is one of us:

This was repeated today, again on CNN, during the noon-hour broadcast.  

By "one of us", I meant the killer is gay - not one of us BZ'ers. 

Then again, who knows .......

[SomewhereonNeptune]

8 hours ago, descartes70817 said:

A man can have a wife, get her pregnant every year and still have sex with other men every single day without disobeying the "go forth and multiply" commandment. This leaves me asking "who benefits", from increasing their population, and the answer is "priests and kings/tribal leaders" every single time.

Actually, we've created a system where we all benefit from continued population growth at a certain rate. It's called Social Security, and the funding comes from current wage earners to pay current recipients. Unless birthrates make an increase (they've been decreasing in the Western world for years), it'll create an aging population (think Japan) that will have a difficult time meeting obligations. Fewer people to buy products, goods, services. A shelter surplus due to more homes than occupants as they die off. Japan has this now too, you can buy really cheap homes in the country now. Europe is already feeling this effect too. China will start to feel the effects of their "one child" policy. Korea is feeling this as well, Russia is aging and population declining. 

The fact is that fewer people are having kids and they're doing so later in life, and China can't continue to provide kids for adoption indefinitely, and Elon Musk will run out of women to impregnate. 🤣 The population growth is not coming from the first world any longer. We've worried so long about a population explosion that we forgot to notice the implosion that we've begin to create. And let's not even begin to discuss Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.

[verbalBTTM]

13 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

Actually, we've created a system where we all benefit from continued population growth at a certain rate. It's called Social Security, and the funding comes from current wage earners to pay current recipients. Unless birthrates make an increase (they've been decreasing in the Western world for years), it'll create an aging population (think Japan) that will have a difficult time meeting obligations. Fewer people to buy products, goods, services. A shelter surplus due to more homes than occupants as they die off. Japan has this now too, you can buy really cheap homes in the country now. Europe is already feeling this effect too. China will start to feel the effects of their "one child" policy. Korea is feeling this as well, Russia is aging and population declining. 

The fact is that fewer people are having kids and they're doing so later in life, and China can't continue to provide kids for adoption indefinitely, and Elon Musk will run out of women to impregnate. 🤣 The population growth is not coming from the first world any longer. We've worried so long about a population explosion that we forgot to notice the implosion that we've begin to create. And let's not even begin to discuss Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.

"Humanity is a garden, and the xxxxxx are the weeds"

[TaKinGDeePanal]

On 9/16/2025 at 1:33 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

... the moderates and conservatives this weekend set a good example by coming together in prayer, vigil, and remembrance.

Only once it was proven that the bullet fired wasn't from a member of the left. Before that, it was "this is War". Meanwhile, at least one senior Republican politician has publicly said that the Democratic Party is a terrorist organisation. Not exactly words ever used by MLK or JC.

BTW, where were the prayers when an actual politician (Melissa Hortmann) was assassinated?

Edited 6 hours ago by TaKinGDeePanal

[SomewhereonNeptune]

4 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

BTW, where were the prayers when an actual politician (Melissa Hortmann) was assassinated?

You're probably barking up the wrong tree here as I was very saddened at the deaths in Minnesota -- both the kids in the church/school and the legislators (the Hortmans). I'll say 2 things:

1. One is more local, the other national/international. Simply the range of people who knew each person. Nonetheless, neither of them were right.
2. I'm fatigued of the canned responses such as "Well what about..." or "This other thing..." because it tries to create a division where none may exist, and it comes across as passive aggressive.

I was watching a panel show on Monday and one of the panelists started down that road and was waylaid by the responses as it came across as being insensitive to the current situation. That panelist has a reputation of doing the "Well what about..." response a bit too often. 

But as to your question, no violence like that is acceptable. Neither should have happened.  Along that line, I will stand by my statement that the examples in the wake of events on each side of the (George Floyd, Kirk) couldn't be more different. We may see this point differently, but I've watched more people reject the tactics used in the former and embrace the examples of the latter. 

[rawfuckingonly]

5 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Only once it was proven that the bullet fired wasn't from a member of the left.

What do you "proven?" "proven" how? According to who?