The "and/or" in Kirks statement makes it worse.
Break it down. He said that Biden should
A) be tried (half of the "or")
B) he should be executed without trial (the other half of the "or")
C) he should be both tried and executed (the "and" scenario).
Agreeing with proposed "remedy" A, which you apparently do, is no reason to deny that remedies B & C were not also very clearly proposed.
Jesus H, you're a 'scientist'? He said "given the death penalty", which is quite obviously not the same as "executed without trial".
One thing Bennett gets wrong - and this isn't really about Kirk, but I think you could include him - is missing the reality that too many people who engage in the practice of trying to change people with persuasion fail to open themselves up to the same. It's a one way conversation. Kirk was sharing his wisdom with others, hoping some would be convinced. I doubt he ever took the time to remind himself "You don't know everything, remember to keep open the possibility someone in that crowd might change your mind."
The short of it is this: it's commendable that some people what to persuade. I agree with Brad that democracy done right uses words, not violence. But what I find lacking is any of these great persuaders willing to take the next step into actual dialogue.
I think he was mostly interested in turning the country around, and reversing the indoctrination going on on college campuses, and less interested in having finely nuanced debate ala a William F. Buckley.
That was what he saw as his calling.
He avoided 'getting into the woods' on a topic like abortion in rape/incest situations, as an example. And he avoiding being drawn into serious debate about how "Christian" it is to debate non-violent illegals by arguing that Christians are expected to obey the civil law.
It would have been interesting to see him in a toe to toe debate with someone like Hitchens.
Hortman US Congress resolution...passed unanimously.
Kirk resolution...DK'd by shitlibs.
That's like wanting to see a fight between Tyson and your next door neighbor.One thing Bennett gets wrong - and this isn't really about Kirk, but I think you could include him - is missing the reality that too many people who engage in the practice of trying to change people with persuasion fail to open themselves up to the same. It's a one way conversation. Kirk was sharing his wisdom with others, hoping some would be convinced. I doubt he ever took the time to remind himself "You don't know everything, remember to keep open the possibility someone in that crowd might change your mind."
The short of it is this: it's commendable that some people what to persuade. I agree with Brad that democracy done right uses words, not violence. But what I find lacking is any of these great persuaders willing to take the next step into actual dialogue.
I think he was mostly interested in turning the country around, and reversing the indoctrination going on on college campuses, and less interested in having finely nuanced debate ala a William F. Buckley.
That was what he saw as his calling.
He avoided 'getting into the woods' on a topic like abortion in rape/incest situations, as an example. And he avoiding being drawn into serious debate about how "Christian" it is to debate non-violent illegals by arguing that Christians are expected to obey the civil law.
It would have been interesting to see him in a toe to toe debate with someone like Hitchens.
Latest Post: RIP Jesse Jackson Our newest member: Jameson Moreau Recent Posts Unread Posts
