Very odd how we are flooding the news, lowering flags, and focusing on the tragic death of this one man. So little is said about the deaths of the dedicated officer that died at the CDC, the 3 that just died in PA, the Minnesota Speaker of the House and her husband, the numerous school kids, and many more. All tragic. "How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?"
I really don't know what kind of person he was. My point is that many of his reported ideas must be evaluated apart from how one feels about the man. Good guys have bad ideas. Bad guys have good ideas, Most ideas are not bad or good until they are examined by someone with criteria for making such distinctions. And then we need to discuss the criteria. Too much of history records the slavish following of messages because of our support for the messenger.
I do not know him at all either, but am going solely on what he said and wrote. You should too. And don't get me started on Kirk's Professor Watch . . . here is one of his targets at BGSU
I wasn't clear about how I suggest we deal with Kirk's writings and speaking. I've read some of the lists. As reported, and I don't have much background on how accurate, they are worth discussing, except that Kirk, like many "performers" says to "prove him wrong." That by itself, as a theme for his crusade, strongly suggests that he is either not really serious about a conversation or is ignorant of the fundamental logic of debate: when you present an idea it is your responsibility to defend it and then the opponent can challenge your logic or value of your evidence. One can make all kinds of wild statements. "I saw a unicorn yesterday." And I cannot show or prove you didn't, or do I need to.
Didn't/don't know Kirk, before or after his death. That being said, no one deserves to die for exercise our right to free speech. But to label him as a martyr or whatever, further promotes division. I lower my flag on Memorial Day to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so people like Kirk could exist. As far as I can tell, he did nothing deserving national recognition, good or bad.
Very odd how we are flooding the news, lowering flags, and focusing on the tragic death of this one man. So little is said about the deaths of the dedicated officer that died at the CDC, the 3 that just died in PA, the Minnesota Speaker of the House and her husband, the numerous school kids, and many more. All tragic. "How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?"
And so many others around the world. Needless, cruel, unjust.
Come on John - I don't condone his death, but he was a rotten human being, and we can and should say so.
I really don't know what kind of person he was. My point is that many of his reported ideas must be evaluated apart from how one feels about the man. Good guys have bad ideas. Bad guys have good ideas, Most ideas are not bad or good until they are examined by someone with criteria for making such distinctions. And then we need to discuss the criteria. Too much of history records the slavish following of messages because of our support for the messenger.
I do not know him at all either, but am going solely on what he said and wrote. You should too. And don't get me started on Kirk's Professor Watch . . . here is one of his targets at BGSU
https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/timothymesserkruse
I wasn't clear about how I suggest we deal with Kirk's writings and speaking. I've read some of the lists. As reported, and I don't have much background on how accurate, they are worth discussing, except that Kirk, like many "performers" says to "prove him wrong." That by itself, as a theme for his crusade, strongly suggests that he is either not really serious about a conversation or is ignorant of the fundamental logic of debate: when you present an idea it is your responsibility to defend it and then the opponent can challenge your logic or value of your evidence. One can make all kinds of wild statements. "I saw a unicorn yesterday." And I cannot show or prove you didn't, or do I need to.
Didn't/don't know Kirk, before or after his death. That being said, no one deserves to die for exercise our right to free speech. But to label him as a martyr or whatever, further promotes division. I lower my flag on Memorial Day to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so people like Kirk could exist. As far as I can tell, he did nothing deserving national recognition, good or bad.