Here are some selected quotes from the posts above:

quote:

He was the next, younger version of the up and coming Rush Limbaugh. He loved this country and he belived in the court of public opinion.

quote:

The prevailing opinion among the Left is that CK was a racist, misogynist, Fascist, whatever because they are too damn lazy to see for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
A conundrum. If Kirk did not have a message of hate, why were so many people here obviously swimming in hate attracted to him?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Snav:
Because the side that thinks like you murdered a really decent, good human being.

Murdered he was unjustly. The rest, I can and do disagree with.

Your attitude says it all.

First, his unjust murder wasn't by a "side" but by an individual. And unjust murder is redundant. Murder by definition is unjust.

I think the best indication of what Kirk stood for is indicated by judging those he influenced.

Here are two relevant proverbs:

"Judge a man by his fruit," or "You shall know them by their fruits," is a biblical phrase from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16) meaning you can recognize a person's true character or the validity of a teaching by observing the consistent results, actions, and consequences of their life and words, rather than superficial appearances or claims. Just as a good tree produces good fruit, a person with good intentions will produce positive outcomes, while a bad person produces negative results.

"A man is known by the company he keeps" is a proverb suggesting that a person's character can be inferred from the friends and associates they choose to spend time with, as people tend to choose companions with similar values, attitudes, and behaviors. This widely accepted idea implies that good company leads to positive perceptions and outcomes, while associating with negative influences can lead to a negative reputation.

People chose to be influenced or affirmed by Kirk's free speech. Now we see the fruits and character of his influence within the hateful posts above, and across the nation.

Just to be clear, I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was until this happened. But I often saw his "fruits".

Always on point. CK is only one more.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Ovj...?si=NOV6Z70yWjdy2t3N

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

First, his unjust murder wasn't by a "side" but by an individual. And unjust murder is redundant. Murder by definition is unjust.

I think the best indication of what Kirk stood for is indicated by judging those he influenced.

Here are two relevant proverbs:

"Judge a man by his fruit," or "You shall know them by their fruits," is a biblical phrase from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16) meaning you can recognize a person's true character or the validity of a teaching by observing the consistent results, actions, and consequences of their life and words, rather than superficial appearances or claims. Just as a good tree produces good fruit, a person with good intentions will produce positive outcomes, while a bad person produces negative results.

"A man is known by the company he keeps" is a proverb suggesting that a person's character can be inferred from the friends and associates they choose to spend time with, as people tend to choose companions with similar values, attitudes, and behaviors. This widely accepted idea implies that good company leads to positive perceptions and outcomes, while associating with negative influences can lead to a negative reputation.

People chose to be influenced or affirmed by Kirk's free speech. Now we see the fruits and character of his influence within the hateful posts above, and across the nation.

Just to be clear, I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was until this happened. But I often saw his "fruits".

Forthrightly, an unabashed appeal to authority on my part.

Respectfully, for your consideration.

Q: Who is YoungHoon Kim?

A: YoungHoon Kim was recognized in early 2025 as the person with the highest currently verified intelligence quotient (IQ) with a reported score of 276.

Okay. What about the "fruit"?

See the hateful posts above from CK's flock.

BTW, I didn't watch the whole video, just enough to get your point.

I don't know for sure, but I always figured high IQ doesn't make someone immune to ideas or bias founded in belief rather than fact. Also, IMO, high IQ doesn't necessarily mean critical thinking.

But you did hit the nail on the head. "A true Christian". As I said, The members of the KKK considered themselves true Christians.

I’m as much a true Christian as Kirk or anyone in Texas.

My suggestion is for so called self-proclaimed true Christians to pray.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay. What about the "fruit"?

See the hateful posts above from CK's flock.

BTW, I didn't watch the whole video, just enough to get your point.

I don't know for sure, but I always figured high IQ doesn't make someone immune to ideas or bias founded in belief rather than fact. Also, IMO, high IQ doesn't necessarily mean critical thinking.

But you did hit the nail on the head. "A true Christian". As I said, The members of the KKK considered themselves true Christians.

If you compare every group too its worst example, you will always interpret everything they say as bad.

The nazis were national socialist workers party.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I’m as much a true Christian as Kirk or anyone in Texas.

My suggestion is for so called self-proclaimed true Christians to pray.

LeggoMyEggo,

I wasn't aware this is a dick measuring contest.

What Texas has to do with this, I am sure I do not know.

As far as "self-professed true Christians" I would suggest you re-read anything I may have posted in this thread and try to suss out where I, or anyone else posting, claimed that distinction, because you are proselytizing up the wrong tree.

.

I can't speak for "fruits"

I can only answer for my own actions.

However, were "I" to hazard a guess,
many "fruits" may be frustrated to the point of exasperation with "your" mischaracterization of someone "they" admire,
from "their" perspective?

My suggestion to "you" is to take that up with "them".

.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Here are some selected quotes from the posts above:

quote:

He was the next, younger version of the up and coming Rush Limbaugh. He loved this country and he belived in the court of public opinion.

quote:

The prevailing opinion among the Left is that CK was a racist, misogynist, Fascist, whatever because they are too damn lazy to see for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
A conundrum. If Kirk did not have a message of hate, why were so many people here obviously swimming in hate attracted to him?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Snav:
Because the side that thinks like you murdered a really decent, good human being.

Murdered he was unjustly. The rest, I can and do disagree with.

Your attitude says it all.

First, his unjust murder wasn't by a "side" but by an individual. And unjust murder is redundant. Murder by definition is unjust.

I think the best indication of what Kirk stood for is indicated by judging those he influenced.

Here are two relevant proverbs:

"Judge a man by his fruit," or "You shall know them by their fruits," is a biblical phrase from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16) meaning you can recognize a person's true character or the validity of a teaching by observing the consistent results, actions, and consequences of their life and words, rather than superficial appearances or claims. Just as a good tree produces good fruit, a person with good intentions will produce positive outcomes, while a bad person produces negative results.

"A man is known by the company he keeps" is a proverb suggesting that a person's character can be inferred from the friends and associates they choose to spend time with, as people tend to choose companions with similar values, attitudes, and behaviors. This widely accepted idea implies that good company leads to positive perceptions and outcomes, while associating with negative influences can lead to a negative reputation.

People chose to be influenced or affirmed by Kirk's free speech. Now we see the fruits and character of his influence within the hateful posts above, and across the nation.

Just to be clear, I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was until this happened. But I often saw his "fruits".

a lot of philosophy debates can start with that statement but i will imagine for some that will be too much ... just the thought if i may add ...

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
I can't speak for "fruits"

I can only answer for my own actions.

However, were "I" to hazard a guess,
many "fruits" may be frustrated to the point of exasperation with "your" mischaracterization of someone "they" admire,
from their perspective?

My suggestion to "you" is to take that up with "them".

But you can witness the actions I'm talking about.

And I am taking it up with them. You just happen to be the one responding.

I'm mostly charactering the "fruits", being the hate, rage and blame rhetoric. And this is not something that just happened, coinciding with the tragedy. It's been going on for a long time.

Any characterization of the person MAY be by looking at what they inspire and what they say.

Let's separate the hate, rage and misplaced blame talk from the influencer and the influenced.

Oh wait. That's a delusion.

Who am I, to argue with you?

Thank you for your consideration though.

.

quote:

Thank you for your consideration though.

Likewise.

quote:

a lot of philosophy debates can start with that statement but i will imagine for some that will be too much ... just the thought if i may add ...

I'm not sure about that. So, I'll default to the notion that it's not too much, until shown to be wrong. Am I naive, giving too much credit? Yes, probably, based on evidence so far. But, there's always hope. What's left to do but talk it out?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay. What about the "fruit"?

See the hateful posts above from CK's flock.

BTW, I didn't watch the whole video, just enough to get your point.

I don't know for sure, but I always figured high IQ doesn't make someone immune to ideas or bias founded in belief rather than fact. Also, IMO, high IQ doesn't necessarily mean critical thinking.

But you did hit the nail on the head. "A true Christian". As I said, The members of the KKK considered themselves true Christians.

If you compare every group too its worst example, you will always interpret everything they say as bad.

The nazis were national socialist workers party.

Apparently you misunderstand me.

I'm not "comparing" Christianity to its worst examples. I'm equating the worst of it now with the worst examples historically.

This is some very disturbing stuff, and it's top - down.

Let me show you something:

I'll link the whole article, but there is a specific quote within, from a person of utmost influence. I think it's a reasonable assumption that he means what he says, and others are supportive, and Trump is counting on it.

For the AI summary -

https://www.google.com/search?...IBx0&sclient=gws-wiz

For a specific article, from qualified authority:

https://open.substack.com/pub/...=post&utm_medium=web

Excerpt - Wormtongue Miller's quote:

Trump’s Phase 2 thinking can be seen most vividly in the remarks of his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, who is turning Kirk’s murder into a political cause. As Miller wrote on Saturday:

“In recent days we have learned just how many Americans in positions of authority — child services, law clerks, hospital nurses, teachers, gov’t workers, even DOD employees — have been deeply and violently radicalized,” calling them “the consequence of a vast, organized ecosystem of indoctrination.”

Miller continued:

“There is an ideology that has steadily been growing in this country which hates everything that is good, righteous and beautiful and celebrates everything that is warped, twisted and depraved. It is an ideology at war with family and nature. It is envious, malicious, and soulless. It is an ideology that looks upon the perfect family with bitter rage while embracing the serial criminal with tender warmth.

Its adherents organize constantly to tear down and destroy every mark of grace and beauty while lifting up everything monstrous and foul. It is an ideology that leads, always, inevitably and willfully, to violence—violence against those [who] uphold order, who uphold faith, who uphold family, who uphold all that is noble and virtuous in this world. It is an ideology whose one unifying thread is the insatiable thirst for destruction.”

Miller has vowed to use the power of the government against MAGA’s political enemies, calling his political opponents “domestic terrorists” and warning:

“[T]he power of law enforcement under President Trump’s leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, take away your power, and, if you’ve broken the law, to take away your freedom.”

===========================================================

https://youtube.com/shorts/F1e...?si=QN55q5zeSGe1HFlO

Miller: We are going to attack the left in Charlie Kirk’s name

===========================================================

It's clear that those Americans who let this creep lead/influence them with this radicalization, are not open to reason.

For those self-deemed moderate conservatives, by the time they realize what's happening, the end game, it's too late.

https://youtube.com/shorts/F1z...?si=q-fY3bwfKshf36zn

quote:

Q: Who is YoungHoon Kim?

A: YoungHoon Kim was recognized in early 2025 as the person with the highest currently verified intelligence quotient (IQ) with a reported score of 276.

Color me skeptical of that claim.

How would you even measure a 276 IQ? That's higher than Eistein's, Newton's, or Hawking's estimated IQs. I read somewhere that above 160, measurements are uncertain and become speculative.

276 is so much higher than the people who drafted and administered the IQ tests...how would the tests they devised measure someone so much smarter than they are?

I would like to see verification through medical studies and an article or two about this incredible IQ. Also would like to hear Dr. Butler's view of the matter.

Grab a crayon out your box and color yourself green with envy.

It's obvious you've looked into the claim.

Dig a little deeper and prove YoungHoon Kim wrong.

nitpicker

.

IQ is more properly psychology and not medicine.

An IQ of 276 is several SD’s above average on a standardized exam series.

I’m not sure how it’s exactly determined after a certain point. The scores are certainly less accurate at the extremes of the scale.

All this says is this guy is very smart, has good memory, and good logic skills.

Smarter than Einstein? Maybe. It has little to do with ability to come up with novel ideas, that’s never been quantified that I am aware of.

Taking a leaf out of Rollands book and introducing irrelevant anecdotes from past interactions, to further the conversation.

Rolland doesn't believe anything people tell him in good faith.

It's weird, the change in his demeanor over the last week.

We all struggle at times, myself included.

Hope he comes back around.

.

I think Jeffeosso has been telling us this is a trait for some time.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Taking a leaf out of Rollands book and introducing irrelevant anecdotes from past interactions, to further the conversation.

Rolland doesn't believe anything people tell him in good faith.

Great, I suppose you're going to be stalking me from now on, like that other guy you mentioned.

I just demonstrated who brought up the irrelevant anecdote. I await your mea culpa.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
It's weird, the change in his demeanor over the last week.

We all struggle at times, myself included.

Hope he comes back around.

.

I notice you've been sensitive too. All I said to get you upset was that I'm skeptical of a claim of a 276 IQ.

Are you struggling now?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Taking a leaf out of Rollands book and introducing irrelevant anecdotes from past interactions, to further the conversation.

Rolland doesn't believe anything people tell him in good faith.

Great, I suppose you're going to be stalking me from now on, like that other guy you mentioned.

I just demonstrated who brought up the irrelevant anecdote. I await your mea culpa.

and more of it. You truely are a spiteful little arse arnt you.

Keep fooling yourself Rolland

You know in the past ive apologised to others when Im wrong. can you guess why no mea culpa here?

I didn't ask for an apology. I asked for a concession you were wrong.

But you're not a big enough man to do that.

Well get it straight, I wasn't wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:
It's weird, the change in his demeanor over the last week.

We all struggle at times, myself included.

Hope he comes back around.

.

I notice you've been sensitive too. All I said to get you upset was that I'm skeptical of a claim of a 276 IQ.

Are you struggling now?

Yes.


.

Ok, this is pointless, and Im not going pages and pages trying to refute another dishonest actor like last time. Times actually. It seems to be a trait of the left on here.

False claims of racism, false proclamations.

Intentional misrepresentation of others words.

The passive aggressiveness.

You guys need to fix your house if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Im not sure what the need to do so is or where it comes from, But it is pathetic and dishonest.

But as said, after the roundabout with ME, I dont have the patience for it again.

quote:

But as said, after the roundabout with ME, I dont have the patience for it again.

So who will you start a fight with next?

No one.

I dont start them.

But it will likely happen with the next guy who lies and shows their pathetic nature with passive aggressive sides instead of just wishing to just talk.

But look at your pettiness. It's on full display.

You start fights by being overly sensitive to any criticism or disagreement and overreacting to the point of attacking the person who offered it.

You dont listen do you. I dont start them. I happily react to lies, deliberate misinterpretation, Mischaracterisation and other pathetic character flaws.|

If you wish to bring those things too me, dont act surprised when I call you on them. From there the fight is all yours of the making.

In this thread you gratuitously mentioned my name and took a shot at me. Anyone who wants to read back can see you started the fight here.

Same fight dude. If you can't see the point I made in doing it, then not my problem.

By making your "point," you knew you would be starting a fight here.

Thanks for proving me right.

Same fight. You really are terrible at understanding. And very, very hypocritical.

I understand nonsense and lies all right, I just don't give them much attention.

There was no fight on this thread until you brought it here. Thus, ruining another thread.

6 post back I said this was pointless and dont want to go pages of this shit. I made my point, I tell you what. Im going to offer an olive branch, as I did with ME once before. I made my point, but it was unwise of me to bring it here to do so.
What you do with both the point, and this is over too you.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
IQ is more properly psychology and not medicine.

An IQ of 276 is several SD’s above average on a standardized exam series.

I’m not sure how it’s exactly determined after a certain point. The scores are certainly less accurate at the extremes of the scale.

All this says is this guy is very smart, has good memory, and good logic skills.

Smarter than Einstein? Maybe. It has little to do with ability to come up with novel ideas, that’s never been quantified that I am aware of.

That kinda number is more like my golf score after two rounds
I actually don’t envy people with high IQ, been around them and most of them are not a lot of fun as they seem to serious of a personalities