By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 09:19 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
An awful story, and shouldn't happen in any developed country but I always find the argument very bad faith about it in general, would hope not but wouldn't even be surprised if the 'gotcha' style of argument used these days is making things worse for the extremes at both ends of the debate and their real life consequences
Sorry, it's probably obvious to others and I'm being a bit thick because I've just been woken up at six am. I don't understand your what you mean by "but I always find the argument very bad faith about it in general". What is "it" in this sentence? Is it abortion, 39 week term abortions, rape in relation to abortion, something else?
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:12 - Sep 15 by Kropotkin123
Sorry, it's probably obvious to others and I'm being a bit thick because I've just been woken up at six am. I don't understand your what you mean by "but I always find the argument very bad faith about it in general". What is "it" in this sentence? Is it abortion, 39 week term abortions, rape in relation to abortion, something else?
Both sides of it, I feel like one side of debate gets backed into a corner of young girl being raped and having to carry to full term and the other ends up with any abortion ok up until birth when to me both sides of that are morally reprehensible* and the debate spends so long talking about such extreme positions we end up with actual talk of the massive nuance between those 2 extremes and no idea where the line should/could be drawn and why.
I just don't believe anyone talking about a 13 year old who is pregnant through rape would, in anything but a supposed hypothetical insist that they are not allowed to abort it
*I'm sure there are some situations amongst this where this isn't [i.e. if baby unviable and it likely to put mother life at risk to deliver]
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:29 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
Both sides of it, I feel like one side of debate gets backed into a corner of young girl being raped and having to carry to full term and the other ends up with any abortion ok up until birth when to me both sides of that are morally reprehensible* and the debate spends so long talking about such extreme positions we end up with actual talk of the massive nuance between those 2 extremes and no idea where the line should/could be drawn and why.
I just don't believe anyone talking about a 13 year old who is pregnant through rape would, in anything but a supposed hypothetical insist that they are not allowed to abort it
*I'm sure there are some situations amongst this where this isn't [i.e. if baby unviable and it likely to put mother life at risk to deliver]
The point here, again, is that is is kirks explicitly declared view.
4
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:37 - Sep 15 with 1303 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:34 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart
The point here, again, is that is is kirks explicitly declared view.
At no doubt because he's been asked that question and ends up, because of how debate is now, in not being able to show any form of nuance - it has to be black vs white.
Kirk's views were that of an extremist, but every grifter is like that these days - and he certainly was one
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:29 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
Both sides of it, I feel like one side of debate gets backed into a corner of young girl being raped and having to carry to full term and the other ends up with any abortion ok up until birth when to me both sides of that are morally reprehensible* and the debate spends so long talking about such extreme positions we end up with actual talk of the massive nuance between those 2 extremes and no idea where the line should/could be drawn and why.
I just don't believe anyone talking about a 13 year old who is pregnant through rape would, in anything but a supposed hypothetical insist that they are not allowed to abort it
*I'm sure there are some situations amongst this where this isn't [i.e. if baby unviable and it likely to put mother life at risk to deliver]
Think this is a bit of false equivalence to be honest. If you are a hardliner (usually of a religious persuasion) and believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances then, however reluctantly, you have to believe that a child who has been raped must carry a baby to term. Indeed, where abortion is illegal, this is what happens. You can be pro-choice and not be in favour of terminations at 39 weeks. In fact I'd wager 99.9999999999999% of people who feel abortion should be legal don't support 39 week terminations other than in very extreme circumstances (e.g. late discovery of a horrific life limiting disability potentially).
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:29 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
Both sides of it, I feel like one side of debate gets backed into a corner of young girl being raped and having to carry to full term and the other ends up with any abortion ok up until birth when to me both sides of that are morally reprehensible* and the debate spends so long talking about such extreme positions we end up with actual talk of the massive nuance between those 2 extremes and no idea where the line should/could be drawn and why.
I just don't believe anyone talking about a 13 year old who is pregnant through rape would, in anything but a supposed hypothetical insist that they are not allowed to abort it
*I'm sure there are some situations amongst this where this isn't [i.e. if baby unviable and it likely to put mother life at risk to deliver]
I see some people have already replied that Charlie Kirk's stated view was that if his 10 year old daughter was raped he would insist the baby was delivered. It is not about him being backed into a position, he believes a human gets a soul at the point of conception and that soul has the right to life.
That position is widely supported amongst his evangelical base support and that support is significant. It underpins pressure on elected representatives and legal changes in the US. The movement has significant money and lobbying power behind it.
The nature of news is that extreme cases will come to the fore, as that is what makes the news interesting to people. The extreme cases happen though because this is the consequence of the laws that have been written.
These extreme cases don't just happen in the US. Famously Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland. She was 17 weeks into a pregnancy. She got an infection and was denied an abortion which would have saved her life. Thankfully in this case, it sparked a change in Irish law.
When we write things into law we create these extreme cases.
I think it is more difficult to articulate opinions than are not at the extremes on this issue.
I'm not 100% sure where the limits are myself. I do believe an unborn baby should have it's own rights at a certain stage. I also don't agree with the view that because women's carries the baby it gives her the sole right over the baby's life when there are two consenting adults and no health issues. I would have been devastated if my wife aborted our baby due to just choice after the first trimester.
With that said, I would rather start with a pro abortion legal framework and build out clauses than starting with an abortion ban and building out clauses.
Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top.
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 15:45 - Sep 15 by Kropotkin123
I see some people have already replied that Charlie Kirk's stated view was that if his 10 year old daughter was raped he would insist the baby was delivered. It is not about him being backed into a position, he believes a human gets a soul at the point of conception and that soul has the right to life.
That position is widely supported amongst his evangelical base support and that support is significant. It underpins pressure on elected representatives and legal changes in the US. The movement has significant money and lobbying power behind it.
The nature of news is that extreme cases will come to the fore, as that is what makes the news interesting to people. The extreme cases happen though because this is the consequence of the laws that have been written.
These extreme cases don't just happen in the US. Famously Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland. She was 17 weeks into a pregnancy. She got an infection and was denied an abortion which would have saved her life. Thankfully in this case, it sparked a change in Irish law.
When we write things into law we create these extreme cases.
I think it is more difficult to articulate opinions than are not at the extremes on this issue.
I'm not 100% sure where the limits are myself. I do believe an unborn baby should have it's own rights at a certain stage. I also don't agree with the view that because women's carries the baby it gives her the sole right over the baby's life when there are two consenting adults and no health issues. I would have been devastated if my wife aborted our baby due to just choice after the first trimester.
With that said, I would rather start with a pro abortion legal framework and build out clauses than starting with an abortion ban and building out clauses.
I definitely agree with the last part re where the starting point for legislation should be; and find these views and how mobilised and ongoing the campaigns are to be totally wrong.
It makes you realise that 'hard won right's , i.e. gay marriage in somewhere like America are not fixed forever, even when the battle is won it has to continue being fought and must be draining.
I think maybe because my world view is so far away from this dogmatic fundamentalist religious one, I just underestimate it to an extent because it just seems so mental how much people care about things that don't affect them in any way
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 14:45 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
At no doubt because he's been asked that question and ends up, because of how debate is now, in not being able to show any form of nuance - it has to be black vs white.
Kirk's views were that of an extremist, but every grifter is like that these days - and he certainly was one
In fairness, Joe - he was asked that question at one of his own events, where he sets the rules and tone. It’s the kind of divisive situation Kirk repeatedly engineered and going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted to then spread his ‘message’
It’s because of grifters like Kirk and the rise of social media that, that is ‘how debate is’ often.
0
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:24 - Sep 15 with 894 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:14 - Sep 15 by Libero
In fairness, Joe - he was asked that question at one of his own events, where he sets the rules and tone. It’s the kind of divisive situation Kirk repeatedly engineered and going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted to then spread his ‘message’
It’s because of grifters like Kirk and the rise of social media that, that is ‘how debate is’ often.
Yeh I get that he has said it, guess it's just how people would actually be when push comes to shove.
Bit like the Gore Vidal quote about homosexuality, the further extreme the viewpoint, the more likely they are to be a total hypocrite in their own life anyway
I read a really good piece earlier, which mentioned about him being a 'great debater'
‘If your definition of a debater is somebody who is 10-plus years older than the people he is debating, spends hours and hours a day coming up with arguments for his belief system, who goes to communities of much younger people, finds topics in which he is a great expert and a great debater on, brings them into the fold to discuss these topics, then uses what they say on videos that his organisation edits, and puts them online to mock his opponents and the views of his opponents, then [Kirk’s] a good debater.’
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:14 - Sep 15 by Libero
In fairness, Joe - he was asked that question at one of his own events, where he sets the rules and tone. It’s the kind of divisive situation Kirk repeatedly engineered and going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted to then spread his ‘message’
It’s because of grifters like Kirk and the rise of social media that, that is ‘how debate is’ often.
"going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted"
'people's frontal lobes haven't fully developed?
while that is of course true up to about 25 - what implication are you trying to draw? it's a question because your statement appears bizzare. if it's inappropriate to expose college students to the views of someone like kirk because they lack the higher cognitive functions to respond, then what other views do they lack the higher cognitive functions to process? does the syllabus need to be censored to protect them? what about left wing views are they also to be censored because students can't process them? should they be protected from all politics because they lack the higher cognitive functions required, or is it just politics you disagree with?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-3
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:40 - Sep 15 with 787 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:26 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
Yeh I get that he has said it, guess it's just how people would actually be when push comes to shove.
Bit like the Gore Vidal quote about homosexuality, the further extreme the viewpoint, the more likely they are to be a total hypocrite in their own life anyway
I read a really good piece earlier, which mentioned about him being a 'great debater'
‘If your definition of a debater is somebody who is 10-plus years older than the people he is debating, spends hours and hours a day coming up with arguments for his belief system, who goes to communities of much younger people, finds topics in which he is a great expert and a great debater on, brings them into the fold to discuss these topics, then uses what they say on videos that his organisation edits, and puts them online to mock his opponents and the views of his opponents, then [Kirk’s] a good debater.’
apart from the final 2 lines that pretty much describes every academic.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-6
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:24 - Sep 15 with 655 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:26 - Sep 15 by itfcjoe
Yeh I get that he has said it, guess it's just how people would actually be when push comes to shove.
Bit like the Gore Vidal quote about homosexuality, the further extreme the viewpoint, the more likely they are to be a total hypocrite in their own life anyway
I read a really good piece earlier, which mentioned about him being a 'great debater'
‘If your definition of a debater is somebody who is 10-plus years older than the people he is debating, spends hours and hours a day coming up with arguments for his belief system, who goes to communities of much younger people, finds topics in which he is a great expert and a great debater on, brings them into the fold to discuss these topics, then uses what they say on videos that his organisation edits, and puts them online to mock his opponents and the views of his opponents, then [Kirk’s] a good debater.’
That's just BS really. What's the issue with him debating college students?
He was very young when he came on the scene and his rise up the MAGA movement was on campus, so it's not hugely surprising he was talking to Gen Z bracket, he was only 31 himself. University should be the time people engage in open debate and discussions.
You can't tell me morons like James O'Brian and his producers don't try and get the most stereotypical "Sun reader" type call they can pushed though so he can belittle them and promote his own YouTube feed with edits. It's across the spectrum and largely irrelevant.
Challenge his view rather his content production. Everyone has an audience, that's how they all make money and it's certainly not exclusive to the right.
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:24 - Sep 15 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior
That's just BS really. What's the issue with him debating college students?
He was very young when he came on the scene and his rise up the MAGA movement was on campus, so it's not hugely surprising he was talking to Gen Z bracket, he was only 31 himself. University should be the time people engage in open debate and discussions.
You can't tell me morons like James O'Brian and his producers don't try and get the most stereotypical "Sun reader" type call they can pushed though so he can belittle them and promote his own YouTube feed with edits. It's across the spectrum and largely irrelevant.
Challenge his view rather his content production. Everyone has an audience, that's how they all make money and it's certainly not exclusive to the right.
it seems that we're being asked to believe that college students - one of the most politically active and engaged age groups in the US - can't be exposed to open debate because they lack the skills and sophistication to properly understand the issues and they will seduced by the tricks and blarney of the mature and experienced debater. at least if that experienced debater is right wing. clearly left wing views that are the standard fare in most US liberal arts colleges are no threat to the emotional and intellectual development of anyone. plus we are told that until someone's frontal lobe is fully developed (about 25) they lack the higher level cognitive skills to be exposed to right wing arguments - i assume left wing arguments are again absolutely fine and higher level cognitive skills aren't required. i wonder what the fully developed frontal lobe argument (again generally 25) means for the voting age or the age at which people can be given irreversible gender affirming medical interventions? i guess it's only right wing views they can't safely process. jeez.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
-3
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:47 - Sep 15 with 540 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:35 - Sep 15 by lowhouseblue
it seems that we're being asked to believe that college students - one of the most politically active and engaged age groups in the US - can't be exposed to open debate because they lack the skills and sophistication to properly understand the issues and they will seduced by the tricks and blarney of the mature and experienced debater. at least if that experienced debater is right wing. clearly left wing views that are the standard fare in most US liberal arts colleges are no threat to the emotional and intellectual development of anyone. plus we are told that until someone's frontal lobe is fully developed (about 25) they lack the higher level cognitive skills to be exposed to right wing arguments - i assume left wing arguments are again absolutely fine and higher level cognitive skills aren't required. i wonder what the fully developed frontal lobe argument (again generally 25) means for the voting age or the age at which people can be given irreversible gender affirming medical interventions? i guess it's only right wing views they can't safely process. jeez.
1 person has said that. Not the "tribe" Plus I'm not sure that something like I worry if the pilot is black is a great argument for anyone to make. Still more harmless free speech that is not as bad as that of those nasty evil woke radical left wingers that are so feared yet virtually impossible to locate
1
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:52 - Sep 15 with 473 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 17:49 - Sep 15 by reusersfreekicks
1 person has said that. Not the "tribe" Plus I'm not sure that something like I worry if the pilot is black is a great argument for anyone to make. Still more harmless free speech that is not as bad as that of those nasty evil woke radical left wingers that are so feared yet virtually impossible to locate
what?
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 18:00 - Sep 15 with 417 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:36 - Sep 15 by lowhouseblue
"going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted"
'people's frontal lobes haven't fully developed?
while that is of course true up to about 25 - what implication are you trying to draw? it's a question because your statement appears bizzare. if it's inappropriate to expose college students to the views of someone like kirk because they lack the higher cognitive functions to respond, then what other views do they lack the higher cognitive functions to process? does the syllabus need to be censored to protect them? what about left wing views are they also to be censored because students can't process them? should they be protected from all politics because they lack the higher cognitive functions required, or is it just politics you disagree with?
The situation he sets up is one where he is prepped and the other party is not. Worse still, they are presumably selective about what actually goes into the clips.
Worse still, the tactics employed are not those of someone interested in a genuine debate. But the average student who is challenged off the cuff on a campus because they are faced with an objectionable view, are in no position to spot and deal with that.
2
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 18:13 - Sep 15 with 352 views
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 16:36 - Sep 15 by lowhouseblue
"going to colleges where people’s frontal lobes haven’t fully developed yet was seemingly also a tactic of his to get the kind of reactions he wanted"
'people's frontal lobes haven't fully developed?
while that is of course true up to about 25 - what implication are you trying to draw? it's a question because your statement appears bizzare. if it's inappropriate to expose college students to the views of someone like kirk because they lack the higher cognitive functions to respond, then what other views do they lack the higher cognitive functions to process? does the syllabus need to be censored to protect them? what about left wing views are they also to be censored because students can't process them? should they be protected from all politics because they lack the higher cognitive functions required, or is it just politics you disagree with?
I don't understand the downvotes to this - seems like a reasonable counter to the suggestion that Uni students' brains can't handle crappy ideas. Maybe I've missed the point.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Far right politico Charlie Kirk just shot in the neck in Utah on 22:51 - Sep 14 by The_Flashing_Smile
I'm afraid you're confused. I wasn't responding to that bit you've quoted.
Glassers gave a list of people (from this debate) that he trusted knew about Kirk before his assasination. He glaringly left me out of that list. I replied, "I did. I've even posted elsewhere where I've watched a debate with him and an Oxbridge student (can't remember if it's this thread or another)."
Glassers then said he "imagine(s) 99% of the people throwing around terms such as fascist had ever heard of him before the news broke of his murder either" which I took umbrage to and said, "...you seem to be throwing around a lot of assumptions."
BECAUSE...
"Personally I'd imagine people calling him fascist probably did know a fair bit about him, else why would they be calling him that?"
THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE IN THE THREAD CALLING KIRK A FASCIST, WHO GLASSERS IS SUGGESTING MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOW ABOUT HIM BEFORE HIS DEATH.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
No response Lowers? You've returned to the thread but seem to have missed this.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
