• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

She is using his death to launch what she seems to be treating as her dream career, and anyway it's what the saintly Charlie would have wanted given his callous attitude to shootings of school kids.
Indeed, she's obviously overcome with grief and begging for privacy during these difficult times.
 
More thoughts.

In 1973, we decided that very small humans had no intrinsic value to society. They could easily be disposed of with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.

A half century later, we decided that certain grown humans, especially those who use very strange language in the public square, also had no intrinsic value. They could be disposed of as well. And we have wonderfully progressed far beyond the shoulder shrug to joy and celebration.

This Kirk episode brought back memories of the index of my late 60s economics text. No Adam Smith. Obviously, disposing of someone using strange language 200 years prior would not have been possible. However, deleting him from history was way too easy. I can easily see Western academic economists congratulating themselves on a job well done.

That damn language problem.
 
Ah yes, the much vaunted conservative value placed on "very small humans." It is truly a sight to behold. We see that value demonstrated when they gut food assistance for hungry families, kill child tax credits that pull toddlers out of poverty, and ensure that working parents remain priced out of basic childcare.

It seems the intrinsic value of a human life expires the moment it requires a school lunch or a doctor’s visit. You talk about disposing of people with a shrug? Look at the shrug given to the crumbling education system or the refusal to address the leading causes of childhood mortality. As for your Adam Smith tangent, it is almost like you cannot even take your oh, so deep and philosophical post seriously enough to catch the absurdity of claiming the father of modern economics was deleted from history. One wonders how his wiki page ever got written.

And Kirk? If he were consistent in his philosophy (but that crowd has never met a "principled stand" they wouldn't abandon in a heartbeat if they thought it would own the libs), Kirk would have told you not to have any empathy for him, that his death was a price he was willing to pay so that mentally unstable people still had unfettered access to firearms.
 
More thoughts.

In 1973, we decided that very small humans had no intrinsic value to society. They could easily be disposed of with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.

A half century later, we decided that certain grown humans, especially those who use very strange language in the public square, also had no intrinsic value. They could be disposed of as well. And we have wonderfully progressed far beyond the shoulder shrug to joy and celebration.

This Kirk episode brought back memories of the index of my late 60s economics text. No Adam Smith. Obviously, disposing of someone using strange language 200 years prior would not have been possible. However, deleting him from history was way too easy. I can easily see Western academic economists congratulating themselves on a job well done.

That damn language problem.
Every single word of your post is a lie and you should be ashamed for repeating them.

But than again moisogynistic anti-abortion (you lot think the potential life of a clump of undifferentiated cells is far more important than the actual life of a grown woman) has nothing other than lies.
 
framing criticism as oppression is a tactic these right wing grifters have been using pretty effectively for years. saying erika kirk doesn't seem that sad and seems to be turning her husband's death into an infomercial tour and merch sales isn't an expression of free speech or valid criticism, it's the equivalent of child abuse. leave her alone, let her run her scam in peace
 
More thoughts.

In 1973, we decided that very small humans had no intrinsic value to society. They could easily be disposed of with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.
If my mother had been forced to die with her first pregnancy, instead of disposing of the 'very small human' that was killing her, my sister and I would not exist. Why are you shrugging about that?
 
More thoughts.

In 1973, we decided that very small humans had no intrinsic value to society. They could easily be disposed of with no more than a shrug of the shoulders.
I doubt that the women who have voluntary or involuntary (or both) abortions, often do so while shrugging their shoulders.
 
Mind you to me if they did that wouldn't alter anything. But then again I was brought up by a mother who strongly believed in post-natal abortion on demand up to about 18....
Nor to me, of couse, more power to them, but it has not been my experience. Even the women i have known for whom it was a completely uncomplicated decision, weren't unconcerned. But if someone is, that's a good thing - we don't do it for fun (because it isn't), we do it became we have to, for our own valid reasons.
 
Mind you to me if they did that wouldn't alter anything. But then again I was brought up by a mother who strongly believed in post-natal abortion on demand up to about 18....

I think we have a few ex-members who would like even limit removed. 😜
 
Wareyin, the 60 year hoax perpetrated on the poorest and least educated of our own citizens, where the State siphons off 90% of the funds, receives no anger or emotion. But a Christian autodidact talking on college campuses ...

I agree with you on the state of our public education system.

There were only libraries in 1969. Did the author of that textbook, written for teenagers, simply forget a minor event in the history of economics? I do not think so. Maybe he just had something against Scotland.

Inconsistent in his philosophy. As I have said in the past, we share common ground when a group of private citizens collect money for the poor and then pocket 90% for themselves. Long prison sentences. We differ when no standards are applied to the State.
 
Ah yes, the much vaunted conservative value placed on "very small humans." It is truly a sight to behold. We see that value demonstrated when they gut food assistance for hungry families, kill child tax credits that pull toddlers out of poverty, and ensure that working parents remain priced out of basic childcare.

It seems the intrinsic value of a human life expires the moment it requires a school lunch or a doctor’s visit. You talk about disposing of people with a shrug? Look at the shrug given to the crumbling education system or the refusal to address the leading causes of childhood mortality. As for your Adam Smith tangent, it is almost like you cannot even take your oh, so deep and philosophical post seriously enough to catch the absurdity of claiming the father of modern economics was deleted from history. One wonders how his wiki page ever got written.

And Kirk? If he were consistent in his philosophy (but that crowd has never met a "principled stand" they wouldn't abandon in a heartbeat if they thought it would own the libs), Kirk would have told you not to have any empathy for him, that his death was a price he was willing to pay so that mentally unstable people still had unfettered access to firearms.
My US State had a former Republican governor, Chris Christie, who was fond of saying that he was 'pro-life for the whole life', and he did walk it like he talked it, supporting everything from WIC to school breakfasts to adult mental health therapy and drug rehabilitation. I disliked him across the board, but he was intellectually consistent on some points, where his party was not.
 
Wareyin, the 60 year hoax perpetrated on the poorest and least educated of our own citizens, where the State siphons off 90% of the funds, receives no anger or emotion. But a Christian autodidact talking on college campuses ...

I agree with you on the state of our public education system.

There were only libraries in 1969. Did the author of that textbook, written for teenagers, simply forget a minor event in the history of economics? I do not think so. Maybe he just had something against Scotland.

Inconsistent in his philosophy. As I have said in the past, we share common ground when a group of private citizens collect money for the poor and then pocket 90% for themselves. Long prison sentences. We differ when no standards are applied to the State.
There is simply no point in a serious conversation with someone whose recollection and understanding of the subject at hand are so demonstrably faulty. The claim that the State siphons off 90% of funds is pure fiction. SNAP administrative costs are 7%, for instance, not 90%.

As for your 1969 textbook, it is far more likely that you simply don't remember it accurately, especially since the "Invisible Hand" was the cornerstone of Cold War era economics.

But do go on waxing all poetic like about a smarmy jerk who could only look smart by ambushing children he had an extra decade on. It is pretty telling that he had to practice those talking points full time just to be able to beat some of them, and even then he still got his ass handed to him pretty often.
 
My US State had a former Republican governor, Chris Christie, who was fond of saying that he was 'pro-life for the whole life', and he did walk it like he talked it, supporting everything from WIC to school breakfasts to adult mental health therapy and drug rehabilitation. I disliked him across the board, but he was intellectually consistent on some points, where his party was not.
Chris Christie was certainly a character. I thought I liked him in his short lived Presidential run, only to watch him immediately turn around and kiss Trump’s ...<ahem> ring. Sure, their romance soured after a couple of years, but any Republican who claimed to be against Trump and then went all in on him is... well, as spineless as any other conservative, I guess.
 
Chris Christie was certainly a character. I thought I liked him in his short lived Presidential run, only to watch him immediately turn around and kiss Trump’s ...<ahem> ring. Sure, their romance soured after a couple of years, but any Republican who claimed to be against Trump and then went all in on him is... well, as spineless as any other conservative, I guess.
Senator John McCain's surrender was the most disheartening to me.

ETA: not to Trump personally, of course, but to pander to party base when the stakes got high
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom