> I do not tolerate being accused of "lying" for saying things that I sincerely believe to be true and which I actively attempt to evidence.
Your "evidence" being...
> it came across to me that this reflected a belief on Dowd's part that the shooting was reasonable
Uh, that's not evidence. That's you literally making stuff up and using weasel words like "came across" so that you can then accuse people of "misrepresenting" you when they call you out on it.
> This is a plain reading of Dowd's words
You clearly don't know what "plain reading" means. It's the opposite of projection.
> I am not "using a euphemism". I am simply rejecting your framing of the issue. You have no right to compel me to adopt your framing of the issue.
Whether something is a euphemism doesn't depend on whether you agree with me or not. You stated that "there is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms." Supporting the right to bear arms is a euphemism for making deadly weapons widely available. When such weapons are made widely accessible, it's only logical that they'd end up getting used, contradicting your statement. The euphemism serves to obscure that contradiction.
> American gun owners by and large acquire guns by choosing to do so, not by having it forced upon them
This is a straw man.
> I read the article. It does not show Kirk doing anything of the sort.
No, you didn't. Here's the quote from the article:
> Speaking to a television audience a few days after the attack, a grinning Kirk called for the intruder to be sprung from jail.
> “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,” he said.
We have a serious problem here if we can't even agree on whether something is literally written in the article or not.
> why the things he said that are claimed to be hateful are in fact not actually hateful
It's hateful to have a "debate" about why groups of people should be persecuted out of existence. That's not up for discussion.
> None of his expression of opinion was ever about a desire to make people angry. People did get angry, because they didn't like the fact that he had the opinions that he had. But he was absolutely entitled to have those opinions, and to express them.
Attacking people simply for existing in this world provokes anger, and they have every right to feel that way. Although to be very clear, turning that anger into violence is unacceptable. Returning to the main point, absolutely no one is "entitled" to deny the existence of others.
> Regardless, people saying hateful things does not justify a violent response.
Your "evidence" being...
> it came across to me that this reflected a belief on Dowd's part that the shooting was reasonable
Uh, that's not evidence. That's you literally making stuff up and using weasel words like "came across" so that you can then accuse people of "misrepresenting" you when they call you out on it.
> This is a plain reading of Dowd's words
You clearly don't know what "plain reading" means. It's the opposite of projection.
> I am not "using a euphemism". I am simply rejecting your framing of the issue. You have no right to compel me to adopt your framing of the issue.
Whether something is a euphemism doesn't depend on whether you agree with me or not. You stated that "there is no rational line of reasoning in which being shot is a natural consequence of supporting the right to bear arms." Supporting the right to bear arms is a euphemism for making deadly weapons widely available. When such weapons are made widely accessible, it's only logical that they'd end up getting used, contradicting your statement. The euphemism serves to obscure that contradiction.
> American gun owners by and large acquire guns by choosing to do so, not by having it forced upon them
This is a straw man.
> I read the article. It does not show Kirk doing anything of the sort.
No, you didn't. Here's the quote from the article:
> Speaking to a television audience a few days after the attack, a grinning Kirk called for the intruder to be sprung from jail.
> “If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out,” he said.
We have a serious problem here if we can't even agree on whether something is literally written in the article or not.
> why the things he said that are claimed to be hateful are in fact not actually hateful
It's hateful to have a "debate" about why groups of people should be persecuted out of existence. That's not up for discussion.
> None of his expression of opinion was ever about a desire to make people angry. People did get angry, because they didn't like the fact that he had the opinions that he had. But he was absolutely entitled to have those opinions, and to express them.
Attacking people simply for existing in this world provokes anger, and they have every right to feel that way. Although to be very clear, turning that anger into violence is unacceptable. Returning to the main point, absolutely no one is "entitled" to deny the existence of others.
> Regardless, people saying hateful things does not justify a violent response.
Again, we're in agreement here.