I've changed my mind about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Here's why.

[K.I.T.T.]

Debates are not useless at all. Debates shape the moral values and ethics of society, influence politics, can ignite revolutions and what not.

I can't think of a single debated that shaped the moral values and ethics of society, influenced politics, or ignited a revolution. Can you name one?

Entitlement to a belief doesn’t make you right or invincible to philosophical critique. Plus, mine isn't an opinion, yours is.

You're 100% wrong there. Your innate beliefs are solely responsible for your interpretation of right or wrong.

They can live however they want to be – I'm not forcing anyone. I am not targeting people's lives but certain existing moral structures and legal contradictions.
And you never won the sock debate, anyway.

You don't have the right to target "existing moral structures and legal contradictions" because you are an unnamed, insignificant person among a global population in the billions. (In other other words: Who the fuck are you?")

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

I can't think of a single debated that shaped the moral values and ethics of society, influenced politics, or ignited a revolution. Can you name one?

The entire history of philosophy is a series of debates — theses-antitheses chains have been the core of human thought (essentially debates in written form). Democracy emerged from debates between Greek philosophers. The moral/ethical frameworks in law and medicine are debates of past philosophers on questions of what should be considered good or right. Environmental debates shaping policy, civil rights movements, abolition of slavery, all happened through debates.

You're 100% wrong there. Your innate beliefs are solely responsible for your interpretation of right or wrong.

"Innate beliefs"... rationally derived arguments aren't some innate instinctive beliefs.

You don't have the right to target "existing moral structures and legal contradictions" because you are an unnamed, insignificant person among a global population in the billions. (In other other words: Who the fuck are you?")

Right to free speech means the right to target/question anything.

Why does one need to be powerful, or "significant" to propose an argument?

 

[Smooby]

Alright. I won't pretend that I don't like a good conspiracy theory, but at first glance I thought this killing was pretty cut and dried. "Whacko leftist extremist makes a lucky shot" made perfect sense. However... After looking at the whole official story closer, a lot of what they're telling us about the technical aspects makes no sense.

They're saying that Robinson walked to his position with the rifle disassembled in his pants. They're saying he assembled the rifle, made the shot and then disassembled the firearm again. He jumped off the roof (with no rifle in his hand) and RAN away. (How do you run with a rifle in your pants?)

The next stage of the story is that he reassembled the rifle (even though he left the screwdriver he supposedly disassembled it with on the roof) and left the rifle in the woods, in a box, and wrapped in a towel.

Now. I am an expert in small arms, and a gunsmith. They are claiming that he removed the barrel from a Mauser 98 action with a screwdriver. That is IMPOSSIBLE. He could have removed the complete barreled action from the stock, but even those two pieces would be very bulky and almost impossible to smuggle in your pants, and you damn sure couldn't run that way. And why reassemble the rifle (without the tool he left behind on the roof) simply to dump it?

I don't know exactly what's going on, but the official account of what happened REEKS.

I think I saw some footage of a drone in the area at the time of his death, but I think It's probably a tiny alien spacecraft from that gay frog planet the government keeps trying to conceal from us.

 

[Smooby]

I called up that video of the person fleeing across a roof etc., again and watched it, playback speed at 0.25. The suspect DOES carry something, a package with the length of what could be the rifle, sort of slung across his body - he handled it quite deftly while climbing down from the roof - once standing upon the ground, he rearranged the package and made off, lugging it with one hand, sometimes dragging it over the grass, the maneuvering slowed him down considerably.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/11/us/video/charlie-kirk-shooting-person-of-interest-jumps-rooftop-digvid

I mean, are you sure it wasn't a huge dildo the guy had questionable morals.

 

[Smooby]

I'm just happy the radical fuck died from a gun since he said that gun deaths are worth it. Can you say karma? The details don't really matter. Nuts with guns kill people. If you do not keep the guns away from the nuts are there will be many more charlie kirks dying for the cause. No need to cry over it.

Bro can only sing one note and its flat.

 

[Smooby]

I can respect that, and thank them for their service. The libtard who shot Charlie was not military and clearly does not fall into that category of nut you described.

With that cleared up, I stand by my original statement.

You are a dumb brown person so your opinions don't matter.

 

[ghastly_Predator]

 

[Smooby]

Candace Owens put a video out a couple days ago, right, and she reckons Israel had Charlie killed. No joke. I’m inclined to believe her—she and Charlie were proper close. Why would she stick her neck out like that on her channel with nearly 5 million people and publicly say she thinks Israel did it, after trying to buy him off didn’t work?

You should go check it out. It’s not the most insane theory I’ve heard.

I’d believe that over some nutter drivin’ 400 km just ’cause his girlfriend’s a trans-bird and throws his whole life away, when otherwise all signs point to him being a smart kid.

Because she's a clout chasing nigger?

 

[K.I.T.T.]

The entire history of philosophy is a series of debates — theses-antitheses chains have been the core of human thought (essentially debates in written form). Democracy emerged from debates between Greek philosophers. The moral/ethical frameworks in law and medicine are debates of past philosophers on questions of what should be considered good or right. Environmental debates shaping policy, civil rights movements, abolition of slavery, all happened through debates.

"Innate beliefs"... rationally derived arguments aren't some innate instinctive beliefs.

Right to free speech means the right to target/question anything.

All of this is incorrect,

Why does one need to be powerful, or "significant" to propose an argument?

One doesn't have to be powerful or significant to propose an argument, but nobody will listen to you otherwise,

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

All of this is incorrect,

Why? You don't want to believe it. Also, this can be a dialectic rather than a debate.

One doesn't have to to propose an argument, but nobody will listen to you otherwise,

You keep stressing on the point that it's useless/pointless/powerless. That doesn't mean in any way I cannot have an argument.

Want a dialectic? It's way better and calmer than a debate.

 

[K.I.T.T.]

Why? You don't want to believe it. Also, this can be a dialectic rather than a debate.

You keep stressing on the point that it's useless/pointless/powerless. That doesn't mean in any way I cannot have an argument.

Want a dialectic? It's way better and calmer than a debate.

I don't want to debate and I don't want to have a dialectic. I'm not interested in arriving at a "truth". I will alter my opinions based upon conclusions I've drawn from my own personal observations or research. If I want anyone else's opinion, I'll ask for it.

 

[GuanoLoco]

View attachment 918999

And he was raised in a republican household too. Poor bastard just had too much trumptard in his life. But he left us with just a little less, I can appreciate that.

 

[GuanoLoco]

You are a dumb brown person so your opinions don't matter.

Actually, I'm probably more white than you.

 

[45cal1911]

And he was raised in a republican household too. Poor bastard just had too much trumptard in his life. But he left us with just a little less, I can appreciate that.

I know it must be hard to accept that you and your ilk have many things in common with the perp.
Be a man and accept your ideology is in the wrong.

 

[45cal1911]

Actually, I'm probably more white than you.

I am sure. You have a boyfriend too?

 

[GuanoLoco]

I know it must be hard to accept that you and your ilk have many things in common with the perp.
Be a man and accept your ideology is in the wrong.

Actually, I am anxiously awaiting for trump to get the bullet.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

I don't want to debate and I don't want to have a dialectic. I'm not interested in arriving at a "truth". I will alter my opinions based upon conclusions I've drawn from my own personal observations or research. If I want anyone else's opinion, I'll ask for it.

Stubborn... but okay.

 

[Deleted member 42069lol]

I am sure. You have a boyfriend too?

Did he dislike Kirk?

 

[45cal1911]

Actually, I am anxiously awaiting for trump to get the bullet.

That post defines you and your ilk accurately.
Not too long ago you clowns were celebrating the death of Charlie and now are coping hard. 🤣

 

[45cal1911]

Did he dislike Kirk?

You must be a true dense one. Haven’t his posts been clear enough?

You can PM the clown yourself if you like to clarify.