• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

 
 
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.
Click to expand...
No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.
Click to expand...
This is technically a true statement, however, it is still absolute nonsense.

It implies a sense of parity between sides when in reality, if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.
Click to expand...
Why is it that you apply that principle to a thought from a dead guy that nobody at IIDB projected as true, but you won't apply that principle to thoughts that were projected and asserted to be true in this thread by a member? Are thoughts supposed to be exempt from critical examination if you agree with them?

Just because X can't be statistically disproven doesn't mean a reasonable conjecture can't be concluded based on a decent amount of observable evidence.
Click to expand...
Quite so.. Don didn't supply a decent amount of observable evidence. He supplied two blatantly flawed studies and claimed they made his reasonable conjecture "certainly" true. That's why we're here.

Bomb#20 said:
The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.
Click to expand...
Finally something we can agree on. :beers:
Click to expand...
You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.
Click to expand...
"gaslighting". What do you mean by that word? It looks like you mean "If you won't uncritically accept every anti-Charlie-Kirk claim leftists make regardless of quality of evidence then you're secretly a Charlie Kirk fanboy.". If that's not what you mean by it, feel free to explain yourself.
 
Charlie Kirk is dead.
Things should be more peaceful now.
But they’re not. How come?
 
Bomb#20 said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
The absence of evidence of overrepresentation, combined with the low observed frequency, is sufficient to refute the initial claim that trans people are overrepresented.
Click to expand...
No it isn't -- the data is too weak to either refute or confirm that claim.
Click to expand...
This is technically a true statement, however, it is still absolute nonsense.

It implies a sense of parity between sides when in reality, if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.
Click to expand...
Why is it that you apply that principle to a thought from a dead guy that nobody at IIDB projected as true, but you won't apply that principle to thoughts that were projected and asserted to be true in this thread by a member? Are thoughts supposed to be exempt from critical examination if you agree with them?

Just because X can't be statistically disproven doesn't mean a reasonable conjecture can't be concluded based on a decent amount of observable evidence.
Click to expand...
Quite so.. Don didn't supply a decent amount of observable evidence. He supplied two blatantly flawed studies and claimed they made his reasonable conjecture "certainly" true. That's why we're here.
Click to expand...
Bomb#20 said:
Bomb#20 said:
The data simply does not contain the necessary signal to support the original, inflammatory assertion.
Click to expand...
Finally something we can agree on. :beers:
Click to expand...
You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.
Click to expand...
"gaslighting". What do you mean by that word? It looks like you mean "If you won't uncritically accept every anti-Charlie-Kirk claim leftists make regardless of quality of evidence then you're secretly a Charlie Kirk fanboy.". If that's not what you mean by it, feel free to explain yourself.
Click to expand...
It means you aren't fooling anyone.
 
ZiprHead said:
Click to expand...

She's also said "I'm not a flat earther. I'm not a round earther. Actually, what I am is - I am somebody who has left the cult of science". So I'm not gonna take this so seriously or give her any credibility.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
if something doesn't have any evidence to support it, it isn't worth the words to project the thought.
Click to expand...
Why is it that you apply that principle to a thought from a dead guy that nobody at IIDB projected as true, but you won't apply that principle to thoughts that were projected and asserted to be true in this thread by a member? Are thoughts supposed to be exempt from critical examination if you agree with them?
Click to expand...
<crickets>
Bomb#20 said:
Finally something we can agree on. :beers:
Click to expand...
You try to look like you are protecting the honor of statistical purity, but it looks a lot more like gaslighting.
Click to expand...
"gaslighting". What do you mean by that word? It looks like you mean "If you won't uncritically accept every anti-Charlie-Kirk claim leftists make regardless of quality of evidence then you're secretly a Charlie Kirk fanboy.". If that's not what you mean by it, feel free to explain yourself.
Click to expand...
It means you aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...
What is it you feel I'm trying to fool someone about?
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Bomb#20 said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
In Bomb#20's defense, maybe he isn't insulting us.
Click to expand...
You say that like insulting you would be a bad thing. Why, do you have some objection to insults, Mr. "your argument is clever, but it's evasive."? You said that to me because you are illogical and because you are malicious. You do not have an intellectually honest reason to accuse me of being evasive.
Click to expand...

I did not call you personally either evasive or clever. I called your argument clever but evasive. A person can have a clever argument but not be generally clever themselves, theoretically. Likewise, a person can have a super genius argument but be a dimwit. The same is true for an evasive argument. A person can submit an evasive argument but generally not be an evasive person. ...
Click to expand...
According to the OED:
e·va·sive
/əˈvāsiv/
adjective
- tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation, especially by responding only indirectly.
- directed toward avoidance or escape.
​
Arguments have neither commitments to make nor selves to reveal; they do not respond but rather are responses; the goals they're directed toward are not their own but are goals of the arguer who directs them. There is no semantic difference between labeling an argument evasive and accusing its arguer of evading. You get to insult me; I get to insult you back. It's IIDB; people insult one another a lot here.

Bomb#20 said:
Maybe he cares about us in the same way Charlie Kirk cared about trans people--calling us defective for our own good.
Click to expand...
... I didn't claim Kirk called trans people defective for their own good ...
Click to expand...

Full stop. I didn't claim that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim you claimed I claimed it. You insinuated it.

Continuing on:
Bomb#20 said:
and you do not have an intellectually honest reason to insinuate that I did.
Click to expand...

I did not insinuate that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.
Click to expand...
No? Then what the bejesus was "Maybe he cares about us in the same way Charlie Kirk cared about trans people--calling us defective for our own good."? Sure looks like an insinuation.

However, YOU did imply everyone in the thread arguing against you was personally illogical, not merely their arguments.
Click to expand...
You're committing a hasty generalization fallacy. I implied the leftists arguing against me are illogical, not everyone. One of the people arguing against me isn't a leftist; I didn't imply that guy is illogical.

I gave you and Kirk both the benefit of the doubt in my sarcastic post to say that you both were saying such insulting things to try to benefit trans (in the case of Kirk) and us (in the case of you). The sarcasm works whether or not either is true and remains an open-ended question in the sarcasm.
Click to expand...
:consternation2: That doesn't make any sense. If you'd been giving us the benefit of the doubt then your hypothesis would have been literal, not sarcastic.

But enough with the meta-discussion...
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Bomb#20 said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
That’s why the word "hate" is more than just semantics here. When you argue that a whole group of people are diseased, dangerous, and should be stripped of their rights, that is hate in practice--whether or not you dress it up as concern.

History gives us a clear analogy: slaveholders often claimed they were "protecting" enslaved people from the supposed dangers of liberal equality. George Fitzhugh, for instance, argued that enslaved people were "the happiest people in the world" because slavery spared them from the burdens of freedom. If you take their words at face value, it sounds like benevolence, but if you look at their actions, it was exploitation and domination.
Click to expand...
Dude, you're making my case for me. Do you seriously imagine Fitzhugh and the rest of the slavers were motivated by hatred?!? They enslaved people because they wanted labor and didn't want to pay for it, and had the morals of Mafia dons. Calling that kind of thing "hate in practice" is like claiming a mob enforcer who beats up a merchant for paying his "protection" money late hated the merchant. It's absurd. All you're demonstrating is that abuse of the word "hate" has become so completely normalized in leftist circles that it's become a de facto synonym for "harmful" in the subculture's dialect.

The same applies here. If you only listen to Kirk’s framing--"protecting" people from a so-called ideology--you miss the reality of what his rhetoric and policy advocacy meant for actual trans people: marginalization, loss of healthcare, social demonization, and the revival of 1950s and 60s “treatments” that meant forced institutionalization, electroshock, lobotomies, or being physically forced into psychiatric prisons with 24/7 sedation.

You can nitpick the word "hate" and try to turn that into a leftist slur or whatever, but that is semantic, not substantive.
Click to expand...
If you think it's semantic and not substantive then you don't know what the point in dispute is. What, do you think I'm defending him? I called him a dirtbag, remember? We're not arguing about whether Kirk was a bad person, or whether what he was doing was bad for trans people, or whatever the bejesus it is you think is "substantive". We're arguing about where Robinson's thinking came from. The fact that Robinson called Kirk's views "hate" is a clue. Comparing the semantics of "hate" with the facts of what Kirk said is not a nitpick! It's how one follows the clue to see where it leads. The substantive fact is that the clue leads straight to that subculture's dialect.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the proof standard is whether we can get inside Fitzhugh's--or Kirk's--head. Fitzhugh insisted he was benevolent, but his language was degrading, his arguments stripped people of dignity, and his policies ensured domination. Whether he felt hate or simply justified exploitation, the outcome for the enslaved was indistinguishable from hate in practice.

The same applies to Kirk. We can’t claim he didn't hate when he used language like "perverted" and "mentally ill" in an openly insulting tone, or when he advocated policies that would have trans people institutionalized, shocked, lobotomized, or drugged against their will. But even if you bracket intent entirely, the hostile outcomes still matter.

That's also why the semantic focus misses the point about Robinson. An unstable man immersed in gun culture and online extremism did not need a settled definition of "hate" to justify violence to himself. What mattered was the substance of Kirk's rhetoric--policies and insults that signaled hostility and threat. Whether Robinson labeled that "hate" or "harm" or anything else, the danger he perceived would have been the same.

At the end of the day, your argument is clever, but it's evasive. It shifts attention away from the real-world impact of Kirk's words and policies onto a word game about whether "hate" means subjective malice or objective harm. The effect on trans people is what's substantive.
Click to expand...
You say all that as though "substantive" were an absolute property. That's not how it works. It's a relative property -- whether a fact is substantive is relative to the question one is trying to answer. (For example, the fact that Toni wrote "make" when she meant "male" is not a substantive consideration if we're evaluating her claim that women have good reason to fear men; but it's entirely substantive if we're evaluating her claim that she's a lousy speller.) So when you argue "The effect on trans people is what's substantive.", what question do you think we're investigating, that you think the effect is what's substantive relative to?
 
Bomb#20 said:
According to the OED:
e·va·sive​
/əˈvāsiv/​
adjective​
- tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation, especially by responding only indirectly.​
- directed toward avoidance or escape.​
​
Arguments have neither commitments to make nor selves to reveal; they do not respond but rather are responses; the goals they're directed toward are not their own but are goals of the arguer who directs them. There is no semantic difference between labeling an argument evasive and accusing its arguer of evading.
Click to expand...

An online quote you've sourced but not linked, whether OED-derived or not, is not extensive. As a child I would go to the library and read the very lengthy OED. It in no way captures a definition with just the few phrases you listed.

Even so, you did not address the complete definition. You are assuming an arguer has evasive goals when directing a thing which makes it a circular argument you present. The definition says nothing about goals nor an arguer's intent.

Here is Merriam Webster:
evasive: tending or intending to evade.

A or B. B has a goal in mind while A does not. A tendency is a mere objective fact. Therefore, a goal is not necessary.

Your argument tended to evade makes sense as a construct. Your argument intended to evade does NOT make sense as a construct. Therefore, the correct interpretation is A -- tend, NOT intend.

An argument is not a person. An argument can't lie, but it can be logically flawed or contextually inappropriate. An 'evasive' argument is one that skates around the main issue, replacing substantive content with contextually inappropriate rhetoric. My use was a criticism of the rhetoric and its logical mapping.

An argument is not sentient. It is only capable of tendencies, not intentions.

What's more, let's take a look at the OED in more detail.

evasive.PNG

The OED itself has "tending to evasion" and "an evasive phrase or speech" and so therefore your argument is incorrect. An argument CAN be not only be evasive from your own source but also can TEND toward evasion without needing to express this as INTENTED.

Let's look at some uses.

The Inter Ocean. Fri, May 18 1894. Page 6.

THE INTER OCEAN of yesterday gave the argument made before Judge Bookwalter in the apportionment case by Attorney General Moloney and his immediate predecessor, ex-Attorney General Hunt. The former was mainly taken up with denying the jurisdiction of the court. The only remedy, he insisted, was through the ballot box. No attempt was made to defend the apportionment itself from the charge of being unjust and unconstitutional. In other words, the merits of the case were disregarded and thus a plea of guilty filed by implication.
The weak and evasive argument, if such it may be called, of the Attorney General contrasted strongly with the masterly presentation made by General Hunt. ...​

The Independent. Thu, Sep 05, 2002, Page 16.

But on Iraq, Mr. Blair is not in control of the pace. He does not decide alone when evasive arguments become more substantal, when those more substantial arguments translate into action. ... ​

Bomb#20 said:
You get to insult me; I get to insult you back. It's IIDB; people insult one another a lot here.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. You insulted everyone in the thread.

I am taking a break from this unnecessary drama.

Now just stop.
 
If I were motived I'd start a thread about religious grifters, but despite there being lots of info about them online, I'll add to this thread that I have evidence right in my hand that Erika Kirk is quite a religious grifter.

I got a letter from the grifter today which is so nauseating to me. She started with:

"I have heard from so many of Charlies's supporters...their thoughts, their prayers, and most of all the impact that Charlie made on them....:sick:

Skipping to the third parpagraph ;

"The evildoers who took Charlie's life and threatened him for years have NO IDEA what they have done.

She goes on to say they tried to destroy a national movement.....built on God's merciful love.....:sick:

( And here I thought it was just one guy who killed him because of the way that Charlie talked about trans folks )

Anyway....She adds that her husband's movement will never be stopped.. :devilish:

Along with this idiotic letter, there's of course, a paper included asking for money to honor Charlie....Please give 35, 50, 100, 250, 1000. or. other :rolleyesa:

Don't lose your faith....Help keep Turning Point or some bullshit as we need Charlie's voice now more than ever. 🤮

I do wonder why she sent this to me. Is it because there are so many mega churches in my city so she just assumed that most of us are idiotic Christians who support the hideous Turning Point? Scary shit. If I didn't think I might be targeted, I'd send it back and ask her to please take me off of her mailing list. Plus it has a postage stamp on it. I do wonder how much money she's spent sending this crap out to people she doesn't know. It was only addressed to me, not my husband. Making Kirk a martyr for his horrendous cause is likely to make things worse for rational people who realize what's really going on in the country.

Has anyone else received this? It is funny that it went to a Secular Humanist strong atheist who realizes it's evangelicals who are trying to destroy the country, with the exception of the small minority who know better. It's also creepy that she's grifting off of her husband's awful movement.
 
southernhybrid said:
If I were motived I'd start a thread about religious grifters, but despite there being lots of info about them online, I'll add to this thread that I have evidence right in my hand that Erika Kirk is quite a religious grifter.

I got a letter from the grifter today which is so nauseating to me. She started with:

"I have heard from so many of Charlies's supporters...their thoughts, their prayers, and most of all the impact that Charlie made on them....:sick:

Skipping to the third parpagraph ;

"The evildoers who took Charlie's life and threatened him for years have NO IDEA what they have done.

She goes on to say they tried to destroy a national movement.....built on God's merciful love.....:sick:

( And here I thought it was just one guy who killed him because of the way that Charlie talked about trans folks )

Anyway....She adds that her husband's movement will never be stopped.. :devilish:

Along with this idiotic letter, there's of course, a paper included asking for money to honor Charlie....Please give 35, 50, 100, 250, 1000. or. other :rolleyesa:

Don't lose your faith....Help keep Turning Point or some bullshit as we need Charlie's voice now more than ever. 🤮

I do wonder why she sent this to me. Is it because there are so many mega churches in my city so she just assumed that most of us are idiotic Christians who support the hideous Turning Point? Scary shit. If I didn't think I might be targeted, I'd send it back and ask her to please take me off of her mailing list. Plus it has a postage stamp on it. I do wonder how much money she's spent sending this crap out to people she doesn't know. It was only addressed to me, not my husband. Making Kirk a martyr for his horrendous cause is likely to make things worse for rational people who realize what's really going on in the country.

Has anyone else received this? It is funny that it went to a Secular Humanist strong atheist who realizes it's evangelicals who are trying to destroy the country, with the exception of the small minority who know better. It's also creepy that she's grifting off of her husband's awful movement.
Click to expand...
Well, what do you expect from ritual blood-drinkers? They are thrilled when a martyr dies for Jesus, that's been true since the movement began. The martyr goes to heaven to be with God for eternity, so no harm there, and they make an absolute killing on advertising and engagement. New converts, new offerings, and if all goes well, it may even be an early sign of the coming apocalypse and the miraculous destruction of all non-Christian life.
 
Politesse said:
southernhybrid said:
If I were motived I'd start a thread about religious grifters, but despite there being lots of info about them online, I'll add to this thread that I have evidence right in my hand that Erika Kirk is quite a religious grifter.

I got a letter from the grifter today which is so nauseating to me. She started with:

"I have heard from so many of Charlies's supporters...their thoughts, their prayers, and most of all the impact that Charlie made on them....:sick:

Skipping to the third parpagraph ;

"The evildoers who took Charlie's life and threatened him for years have NO IDEA what they have done.

She goes on to say they tried to destroy a national movement.....built on God's merciful love.....:sick:

( And here I thought it was just one guy who killed him because of the way that Charlie talked about trans folks )

Anyway....She adds that her husband's movement will never be stopped.. :devilish:

Along with this idiotic letter, there's of course, a paper included asking for money to honor Charlie....Please give 35, 50, 100, 250, 1000. or. other :rolleyesa:

Don't lose your faith....Help keep Turning Point or some bullshit as we need Charlie's voice now more than ever. 🤮

I do wonder why she sent this to me. Is it because there are so many mega churches in my city so she just assumed that most of us are idiotic Christians who support the hideous Turning Point? Scary shit. If I didn't think I might be targeted, I'd send it back and ask her to please take me off of her mailing list. Plus it has a postage stamp on it. I do wonder how much money she's spent sending this crap out to people she doesn't know. It was only addressed to me, not my husband. Making Kirk a martyr for his horrendous cause is likely to make things worse for rational people who realize what's really going on in the country.

Has anyone else received this? It is funny that it went to a Secular Humanist strong atheist who realizes it's evangelicals who are trying to destroy the country, with the exception of the small minority who know better. It's also creepy that she's grifting off of her husband's awful movement.
Click to expand...
Well, what do you expect from ritual blood-drinkers? They are thrilled when a martyr dies for Jesus, that's been true since the movement began. The martyr goes to heaven to be with God for eternity, so no harm there, and they make an absolute killing on advertising and engagement. New converts, new offerings, and if all goes well, it may even be an early sign of the coming apocalypse and the miraculous destruction of all non-Christian life.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I'm sure that's what they want. I still think it's weird that I got one of the stupid letters. Did she send one to everyone in the Bible Belt? Did she look at the demographics of my town and see that more than half of the white people voted for trump. But, quite a few of my dearest neighbors are Black. I have an Arabic last name. Maybe it was done randomly by AI. :rotfl:
 
Last edited:
Some analysis of Candace Owens here:


I agree with some of it, in particular that it's okay to ask questions. However, once they start leaning toward something is where I disagree. I don't think they are being skeptical enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom