You misunderstand...(how often do I have to say that?).

My point about the crowds at the Kirk memorial wasn't about an appeal to popularity but about evidence of my observation that Kirk "did immeasurable good in awakening the American youth to truths that their education system was denying them."

That pointing out these truths upsets all sorts of people who believe they have a right to not hear unpalatable truths, is probably true. But its not a reason for someone like Kirk to remain silent or be silenced.

"//What needed to be said was said [on Price]//I agree, and your subsequent silence was telling"

So you agree that everything that needed to be said had been said and then want more to be said!! Logic takes a holiday.

Never, mhaze.

//You misunderstand...(how often do I have to say that?).//

But you do anyway - usually by choice, not chance.

//My point about the crowds at the Kirk memorial wasn't about an appeal to popularity but about evidence of my observation that Kirk "did immeasurable good in awakening the American youth to truths that their education system was denying them."//

That’s just a reworded popularity claim. There is no evidence to show that Kirk did any good.

Crowds don’t confirm truth, and they certainly don’t quantify "immeasurable good." A mass of people showing up to honour someone doesn’t mean that person’s ideas were factually sound - it means they were emotionally resonant. That may explain the turnout, but it doesn’t defend the message.

I cited measurable harm from Kirk’s rhetoric - backed by empirical research. You offered a few tweets and crowd sizes as rebuttal. That’s not a clash of worldviews. That’s evidence vs vibes.

//That pointing out these truths upsets all sorts of people who believe they have a right to not hear unpalatable truths, is probably true. But its not a reason for someone like Kirk to remain silent or be silenced.//

No one said he should be silenced. I said his claims deserve scrutiny - especially when they vilify already-vulnerable groups.

And calling something an "unpalatable truth" doesn’t make it true. "Black pilots might not be qualified" isn’t brave, it’s corrosive.

You’re not defending hard truths. You’re laundering prejudice through the language of bravery.

//So you agree that everything that needed to be said had been said and then want more to be said!! Logic takes a holiday.//

No. I agreed that you felt you had nothing more to say, not that you’d said anything persuasive.

You declared victory, then ran out the back door. That’s not logic taking a holiday. That’s rhetoric clocking off early.

"That’s just a reworded popularity claim."

It still eludes you. Its nothing to do with a popularity claim. Its about my observation that Kirk's death and the murder of Iryna Zarutska represent an inflexion point in US society. The memorial confirms it.

BTW Kirk's wife, at that memorial, forgave the murderer.

"There is no evidence to show that Kirk did any good."

Well none that you'd accept or understand, anyway.

"Crowds don’t confirm truth"

Yet when a crowd of neo-Nazis attended a march you were falling over yourself to tell us it meant something.

"You’re not defending hard truths."

There's that inability to understand the difference between opinion and truth. In JD-land all his opinions are truth and all unwanted truths are opinion.

"You declared victory, then ran out the back door. "

Did I? Weren't you the one declaring that I'd conceded despite my not having conceded to any of your misunderstandings.

Then it’s a symbolic claim, mhaze, not an evidentiary one.

//It’s about my observation that Kirk’s death and the murder of Iryna Zarutska represent an inflexion point in US society. The memorial confirms it.//

You said Kirk “did immeasurable good.” A memorial might confirm emotional impact, but not the factual accuracy or social benefit of his ideas. That still requires evidence, not just optics.

//BTW Kirk’s wife, at that memorial, forgave the murderer.//

That’s her prerogative, and it’s deeply human. But it doesn’t prove Kirk’s ideas were noble, helpful, or true.

//Well [no evidence] that you'd accept or understand, anyway.//

Translation: “I can’t provide any, but I’ll imply it exists.” A classic dodge. How could you know if I'd accept it when you haven't even presented it?

//Yet when a crowd of neo-Nazis attended a march you were falling over yourself to tell us it meant something.//

Yes, it meant the event attracted extremists. That’s a data point about who showed up, not what was true. You’re conflating turnout with truth again.

//There’s that inability to understand the difference between opinion and truth. In JD-land all his opinions are truth and all unwanted truths are opinion.//

Says the man who keeps confusing evidence-based research with “just your opinion.” I cited peer-reviewed studies showing measurable harm. You replied with tweets and a hunch. That’s not a worldview, it’s a vibe sheet.

//Did I? Weren’t you the one declaring that I’d conceded despite my not having conceded to any of your misunderstandings.//

Yes, you did.

What you say and what you do aren’t always the same. If you’ve got a case on Price, present it. Otherwise, your silence speaks louder than the memes.

You agree that everything that needed to be said re Price was said and then in the very next post you assert that I haven't said anything. It must be comforting to be able to adjust your claims with such alacrity while still thinking they stand up.

Just like your assertion that I've provided no evidence on Kirk by which of course you mean I've provided no evidence that you'd accept - might I point out that on that criteria, none exists.

And your hilarious claim that you've provided peer reviewed proof that Kirk did harm when all you did is show some studies that show that some people feel harm if someone looks sideways at them.

You hate Kirk and all he stands for. I get it. Its in the marrow of the woke left. Its why so many of the woke left have cheered his murder. Millions have a different view. You might not like that but you are going to have to deal with.

Anyway, as with the Price discussion, all that needs to be said has been said. I'm out.

You’ve said a lot, mhaze, just not anything that holds up.

//You agree that everything that needed to be said re Price was said and then in the very next post you assert that I haven't said anything.//

No, I said you decided nothing more needed to be said. I never claimed your contributions had merit. You tapped out. I noted it. That’s not contradiction - that’s documentation.

//Just like your assertion that I’ve provided no evidence on Kirk...//

Still true.

You’ve provided crowds, tweets, and vibes. None of that supports the claim that Kirk’s legacy was beneficial, let alone that it outweighed the measurable harm his rhetoric caused.

//Studies that show that some people feel harm if someone looks sideways at them.//

Reducing peer-reviewed findings on suicidality, discrimination, and structural disadvantage to “people feeling looked at” is grotesque - and illustrative. You’re not interested in harm reduction. You’re interested in rhetorical supremacy.

//You hate Kirk and all he stands for.//

No, I oppose dishonest ideologues who profit off stoking contempt for the vulnerable. That’s not “hate,” it’s ethical objection grounded in data and principle.

//Millions have a different view.//

And millions thought asbestos was safe. Appeal to numbers proves nothing, that's why there's even a logical fallacy named after it.

//Anyway, as with the Price discussion, all that needs to be said has been said. I’m out.//

Of course you are. That’s what happens when your talking points are spent, your smears debunked, and your arguments reduced to tone-policing and projection.

Let the record show:

You couldn’t defend Kirk’s fabrications.
You couldn’t support your DEI claims with data.
You couldn’t engage with trans issues without bile.
You couldn’t even define your objection to Price.
And now you’re bowing out, again, calling it closure.

Noted.