• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fight Breaks Out at Vigil After Cyclist Shouted Anti-Charlie Kirk Message

That’s not what Kirk said.
So he didn't say "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters" after referencing the passage from the Bible specifically stating that and debating the "error" LGBTQ+ acceptance is? Odd to reference something like that.
:)
 
The left just doesn’t know when to stop.
Quoted for speaking the unvarnished truth.

Those without any respect don't deserve any.
Knowingly shouting purposefully inflammatory taunts, rubbing salt in the wound at an emotional time, such as this person, got the reaction they was looking for.

No, not approving of this, but certainly understanding of the reaction.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, but certainly never a justification for either violence or murder.

Words can incite emotions, but words should never be a trigger for killing someone.

What ever happened to that old homily presented as a kid's rhyme? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but WORDS can never harm me."

I learned that a long time ago, back when words used by members of one segment of our population on my segment of the population were intended to insult, demean, and anger.

I also learned from my grandmother that such statements were more a reflection of the OTHER person's character, and it is the bigger person who recognizes that and moves on.

I agree. It's just ironic someone upset about violence over someone's words is the next day celebrating someone's words resulting in violence against them.
 
I will never understand how so many folks think the first amendment protects us from each other. It is quite clearly a limit on the state. No law abridging speech. Not “thou shalt not tell assholes to shut the **** up”.

It is impossible for me to violate your right to free speech. Only the state can do that.
I mean punching me in the mouth because of what I said is something id consider a violation .
 
So some speech deserves consequence and other speech does not.

Interesting…

Not at all. What I’m saying is we’re moving into an America where there will be ever more dire consequences for speech that violates societal norms or, at least, upsets a large cadre of citizens, because people are not only becoming less respectful of the views of others, but less tolerant of opinions that are an affront to their worldview. Regardless of how one feels about Charlie Kirk, we’re all losing our right to speak freely in a public square. This is happening not only because of government, but because our citizens are losing not only losing their ability to behave civilly, but tolerate public discourse that some people may find offensive. Civil society requires people behaving civilly. It’s duty-bound, involving a moral code people from Confucius to Jesus to Kant attempted to teach citizens. It’s a concept almost as old as civilization itself.

Having said that, if you agree to uphold a particular employment or contractual standard, including what you can say on social media, then you should honor that agreement—or be prepared for the consequences:

IMG_0057.webp

IMG_0058.webp
 
Last edited:
So are you saying the guy who said "**** Charlie Kirk" deserved an ass beating for just saying something provocative?

Sorry, I still don't believe violence is the answer to words.

For once I can say I agree with you. (y)

The response to words is other words. Either to convince, discuss, seek to educate, or learn.

Only violence deserves a response with violence in self-defense and defense of others.
 
I think that is a very predicable outcome when someone rides into a vigil to provoke the mourners by disrespecting the dead. Especially within hours of the assassination when emotions are running high and raw.

Right now, people should be praying this doesn’t become open warfare on the left not instigating at vigils.
And you think provocative and accusatory posts like yours help?
 
“MAGA” didn’t shoot the Democrat politician. A crazy guy who believed he was acting on the orders of Tim Walz and had a ton of No Kings flyers in his car did.
So now it isn't the 'left' but a "crazy guy". Does the 'left' have a monopoly on mental illness?

 
The ideology of the far left is a disease. I don’t accept that they’re entitled to assassinate someone and then just walk away. You don’t get dialogue for that. It’s past time to recognize it for the existential threat that it is.
What "ideology"? You haven't even the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Don't tell me, when someone says the 'left', your brain screams 'Communism!'
 
Back
Top Bottom