The two seem to be inseparable and yet they not the same thing. In the murder of Charlie Kirk we have an irrational man who was assassinated violently in the most public venue imaginable by one of the most unspeakable and ruthless killers out there and the left rejoices and continues to revel in the murder of a good man who did nothing more than speak the truth quietly and respectfully where good people could come together and listen to it. 100% of the Left is almost certainly tearing out there hair and wondering why the killer of Kirk was such a wonderful marksman and the one sent to murder President Trump proved to be so inept and unskilled as to miss his mark even though, like all the irrational killers, he killed a man for no reason at all other than for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The world was remarking on the death of an otherwise unremarkable pizza shop employee who was going home at the end of her day's work when an irrational man suddenly decided to cut her throat for the most irrational reason—she was a helpless and defenseless white girl riding the train all alone. What? Did someone have to displace all the sound and growing fury that this sort of thing happens everyday now in America and heretofore nobody bothered to say anything or lament the passing of civilization, was that it?
Mr. Kirk still thought that argument and persuasion could be used to sway the thoughts and opinions of his fellow man and open their eyes to the reason that so dominated his life and times and he forgot a simple and growing truth, it is impossible to get people today to change their minds absent a concurrence on the facts and the sad reality is that neither side is willing to stipulate as to the facts and each can turn to their own source of news and information and summon facts like a whirlwind that justify things God himself would never countenance and yet each side knows that "their" facts are the "true facts." Kind of gives one an appreciation for that whole Heresy and Schism thing of the middle ages and Crusades now, doesn't it? It's irrational.
I knew when I heard the news and before I even went to verify it that the media would be filled with the hate justifiers and explainers that routinely come out of the woodwork of every single news service to pardon and excuse the extreme murderous violence of the Left that they would be there pardoning and excusing the murder of Charlie Kirk because he was right wing and therefore guilty of the only crime that still justified the death penalty in the eyes of the Liberal and Progressive left.
And so another good man steps into the clearing at the end of the path. Fair thee well Charlie Kirk and go with God.
11 comments:
Charlie Kirk irrational? It is not irrational to use words in civil debate to the purpose of persuasion. Christ Jesus did the same.
What is irrational is to continue to try to persuade those who would not t hear. Charlie Kirk did not, neither did Christ Jesus. If they not receive you, remove thyself and shake the dust from your sandals, i. e., have nothing to do with them.
https://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/g0jdctfamaiivk3.jpg
Screen shots From bluesky
He actually convinced a lot of people that they were wrong or misguided and changed minds in his little chats with the students. Not everyone, not everywhere but enough to keep him going on. I remember when Debate was a thing that high school and colleges did and the thing about it was that each team was given a topic and then told which side they were to debate and what they "wanted" had nothing to do with the quality of the argument they were supposed to use to support their team's position. You won by making the most convincing case for the argument you were debating whether you thought it was the wrong side of the argument or not. The point was to learn to debate and win it was not to some how bring all parties into agreement. You used to see this with the law, too. This was the stated belief, "everyone deserves a lawyer to advocate on their behalf and a chance to win freedom" but now even there the progressives first and only thought is to hound to death any lawyer who advocates for a client that the Left Progressive liberals hate. I kind of liked Buckley vs Capote when Buckley told Capote that if he called him a nazi one more time he was going to punch him in the mouth. We have reached that stage across the board with the left now. There is no more debate there is only punch in the head.
I had just gotten to that this morning when it was time to make a run to the bank and drop off at school. There was also the supposed head of BLM driving his pickup truck through a crowd of Kirk supporters this morning to run them over for supporting a man who never advocated violence but must be killed lest his arguments sway too many of the black sheep from the paths of violence. It's almost like some people want a war here.
I vehemently disagree with your assessment of his irrationality. His target audience was young people that perhaps do not truly believe the far left rhetoric, yet go along lest they be ostracized. Haven't you heard of the old saw that goes "If you're not a liberal when you're young......"
I've been reading the crazy side of x for a little while today and the people that hated the man are unbelievably vicious and the thing I know about Kirk was that he was never that way to anyone and it struck me that nobody could change these crazy loons opinion on anything now. It would require deprogramming and you would not get it all. They are all true believers in the same sense that all martyrs are and the only thing that will change that is death. I'm talking about the kind that think the only reasonable thing to do in any given situation is to go get a gun and kill as many innocent people as possible and without any remorse at all. Psychopath or sociopaths.
The most irrational thing I read was you labeling Kirk "irrational." He talked to and with people, and used logic to show them the error of their ways. Some were changed; many were not. For you to call him irrational tells us much about you, just as the actions of those cheering his murder tell us volumes about them. You are in error; they are reprehensible.
That’s OK. I’m familiar with words but perhaps I don’t understand that part of the definition of the word. I’ll look it up.
And having looked it worked out pretty much the way I thought it would. I admired Charlie Kirk greatly and regret his murder as much as anyone can but he had a flaw that is common to all good men and many other men and that was kind of like hubris. He thought that he could reason with people and using reason, facts and logic he could change their minds on the topic under discussion. I'm 64 and I learned a long time ago that there are people with whom it is impossible to reason. One will never have a satisfactory exchange of ideas or reason together towards a solution satisfying to both or even get them to back off if they "know" that they are right and that you are "wrong." You cannot reason with them and it is irrational to carry on believing that you can still change them. In modern parlance, one is dealing with a Karen and a being like that is incapable of accepting any truth except hers even if God grabs her by the shoulder, shakes her firmly and tells her she is wrong.
There are an awful lot of Karen's out there now and some people have no idea how dangerous those psychopaths are.
On the other hand, Charlie Kirk was willing to go out and do battle on a level playing field every day and take his chances on running into one of them but I'm pretty sure he never thought he'd be shot down by a long range sniper. There's not much a citizen can do about that and close-in security with guards alert for the rage filled sudden eruption of handgun is not going to be able to cope with it either. It's a hazard that evidently goes with the job now but it kind of always has. Intolerant people who hate those who challenge their perceptions of reality and beliefs have been a hazard since Gilgamesh.
I too was born in early '41.
Mebbe it takes a few years to develop an eagle eye to see what changes will occur if you can but move the lever a millimeter. Mebbe it takes a few years to develop a good understanding and fine appreciation of various words in our native tongue.
Irrational - Yes. Definitely.
Well-intentioned - Yes. Definitely
If I can clear the scales from the eyes of just one individual each day, I have have won a magnificent battle for I have changed the world
I still contend it is not irrational to try and reach children (they are that , even when attending college) and change their minds. If his audience was retirement centers, THAT would be irrational.
Post a Comment