Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ajtj's Post-Lobotomy Market Charts and Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpdunwell who wrote (94828)	9/11/2025 7:12:04 AM
From: Sun Tzu	2 Recommendations Recommended By DarthS S. maltophilia Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97558

I am all for gun rights. So your post is out of context. But none of our rights are absolute when we live with others. For example, your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to hate speech or defamation. The same goes for all your other rights. Your right to refuse vaccines for your kid doesn't give you the right to make the kid a disease vector and spread contagious illness to other children in school. The problem with Kirk and others like him is twofold: (1) they make their living off of destroying the society by taking an absolutist position that defies all common sense. The more extreme the position, the more fame and money they make at the expense of the society. (2) They lack empathy and human decency. When you give a speech after a mass shooting that boils down to "oh well, shit happens, it's ok for you to lose a child so that there are no checks on how fast, how many, and what type of guns anyone can have regardless of their mental health or violence history," then it is absolutely karma to receive no sympathy when the person himself is a victim of shooting. Why do you think this not fair? Why do you think that a person who never showed sympathy for the gun victims is entitled to sympathy when it happens to him?