FoxInEssex
Roofer
I don't tend to get sicko jokes about murder victims from my mates half an hour after it happens as we are not a bunch of knobs.
You do you though...
'Professor' Jason Arday
- Thread starter Pen4
- Start date
You do you though...
hackneyfox
Roofer
Is there a time limit?
Again, he didn't joke, just made the same observation that many in the media did.
FoxInEssex
Roofer
If I have to explain why it was crass and an obvious attempt to be an inflammatory twat then you really need to look at yourself too.
This from Wikipedia - if that’s the way you truly felt, then I’m assuming you were very busy remarking the same, after Kirk died:
A remark Kirk had made in 2023—"It's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights"—was reposted numerous times on social media after the shooting.[324] Social media comments also highlighted another comment Kirk made, in which he said: "I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new-age term that does a lot of damage."[327]
astleyfox
Roofer
He did have a point though.
FoxInEssex
Roofer
You are both missing the point. What he said and the way he said it was written to be inflammatory just after a man was murdered. To get a reaction. It is kind of a shame it got deleted as it would put to bed what he put.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
I shared a post from X with the news he'd been shot. I asked if it was a definition of irony. Whether it was posted 5 minutes after the event, 5 days or 5 weeks, does it really make a difference? Who made you arbiter of taste and when a comment is allowed? You're just looking for something be angry about.
You haven't made one comment about the half a dozen posts Astley made about it. Two-tier outrage.
We get the point you’re making. But in reference to my post, you can see many, many others were doing the same around the world.
You’d have to ask each one of them whether it was in the name of journalism, to be inflammatory or simply highlighting something he’d said in the past.
Perhaps he said what he said when he was alive because he never thought he’d be at the receiving end? Or perhaps he was pandering to certain groups within the USA?
Personally, to say that some deaths are worth it (to keep the US gun laws as they are), is pretty crass & careless anyway, but we all have our views.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
This "Be kind mob" from the regressives makes me laugh. It's said as if all us Libtards (
) are a homogeneous entity who all believe exactly the same thing. I believe in treating people as you would like to be treated, and with respect. However , if they turn out to be a horrible, bitter little racist there's no respect or kindness coming from me.Collibosher
Roofer
He's not a professor ,he's a very naughty boy
Last edited:
Is this ironic posted in a thread about a fantasist?
Billsballbag
Roofer
Back to the subject...all this shows is that some of the supposed finest academics in the UK are also fucking morons. How could they have been duped in such a way to allow all of it to take shape so that this guy got the job?
Too many text books and not enough real world.
Oxford and Cambridge are nothing to write home about. Too many clever stupid people.
Too many text books and not enough real world.
Oxford and Cambridge are nothing to write home about. Too many clever stupid people.
Who needs experts when you can learn everything from Facebook, Twitter etc?
And yet so much social science study is empirical.
Club_B00k_Crutchless
Registered
It's OK if you struggle with abstract concepts. Each to their own.
Billsballbag
Roofer
That is entirely irrelevant to my point.
These places are seen as the pinnacle of intellect. Parents obssess about them. Doors open to a career for anyone whose been there.
Yet they are rife with faults.
Absolutely agree. But the number of ‘experts’ that have emerged purely off what they’ve seen on social media is not exactly healthy either.
bannedontherun
Roofer
University of Life.
George Ferris
Roofer
I told some lies to get every single proper job i ever had. I had numerous cvs for different situations, He got found out he should stop crying and get on with it and stop using the race card.
bannedontherun
Roofer
I've never needed to lie on a CV.
astleyfox
Roofer
Yeah but…….”I think a few mass shootings are worth it to have guns”.
You couldnt make it up!
Pen4
Roofer
Who said that please?Yeah but…….”I think a few mass shootings are worth it to have guns”.
mac
369
Charlie Kirk made a number of statements defending broad gun rights after mass shootings. Here are some of his most notable verbatim quotes with context.
On accepting some gun deaths to preserve the Second Amendment (April 5, 2023)
Speaking at a Turning Point USA Faith event in Utah, days after the Nashville school shooting, Kirk said:
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel.”
He then continued:
“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
This is the quote most often circulated online. The full context was that he was arguing the Second Amendment is a safeguard against tyranny and that eliminating all gun deaths is impossible in an armed society.
On preventing school shootings
In the same discussion, Kirk argued that more armed security, rather than gun restrictions, was the solution:
“How do we stop school shootings? I don’t know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards… How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards… Why don’t our children?”
This was part of his argument that schools should be protected in the same way as airports, banks, and sporting venues.
After the Parkland shooting (2018)
Following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Kirk opposed new gun-control measures and instead advocated:
arguing these measures would be more effective than restricting firearm ownership.
Those are his best-documented public remarks directly relating to guns and mass shootings. The “some gun deaths every single year” quote is authentic and widely verified, but it is often shared without the preceding sentences explaining that he was making a trade-off argument in defense of the Second Amendment rather than expressing approval of gun deaths themselves.
On accepting some gun deaths to preserve the Second Amendment (April 5, 2023)
Speaking at a Turning Point USA Faith event in Utah, days after the Nashville school shooting, Kirk said:
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel.”
He then continued:
“I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
This is the quote most often circulated online. The full context was that he was arguing the Second Amendment is a safeguard against tyranny and that eliminating all gun deaths is impossible in an armed society.
On preventing school shootings
In the same discussion, Kirk argued that more armed security, rather than gun restrictions, was the solution:
“How do we stop school shootings? I don’t know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards… How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards… Why don’t our children?”
This was part of his argument that schools should be protected in the same way as airports, banks, and sporting venues.
After the Parkland shooting (2018)
Following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Kirk opposed new gun-control measures and instead advocated:
- armed guards in schools,
- improved security,
- metal detectors in some settings,
arguing these measures would be more effective than restricting firearm ownership.
Those are his best-documented public remarks directly relating to guns and mass shootings. The “some gun deaths every single year” quote is authentic and widely verified, but it is often shared without the preceding sentences explaining that he was making a trade-off argument in defense of the Second Amendment rather than expressing approval of gun deaths themselves.
Filbo65
Roofer
I'd guess you're in a tiny minority.
(Assuming that lying includes exaggeration, over-claiming, beneficial vagueness and highly selective editing of facts.)
Virtually everyone does it, at virtually all levels of work.
For example, every single one of my clients – over 28 years – blatantly lied or over-claimed regarding work that I knew full well that they hadn't created.
One exception may be the scientific world of peer-reviewed formally published papers, but I'll admit to being alien to that environment...
