[zahlman]

> the mass-murder of mentally ill people.

No, only those who refuse government assistance.

Which inherently makes them a threat to others. Keep in mind that this is happening in the context of Iryna Zarutska getting stabbed to death.

I disagree with it, but it's objectively not what you're representing it as.

> I guess if I call him a Nazi, that just means I just, like, disagree with him?

It's not justified by the evidence.

> At what point can we call a spade a spade? What do we call that man?

Something else.

> How is he not getting cancelled?

How isn't he? I've lost count of the times I've had to hear about this in the last few days, which is strange because I don't watch American TV at all and he has nothing to do with Kirk. If you think he should be fired from Fox because of it then you are absolutely welcome to call them and say so. That's freedom of speech, and I agree that you have a much better case than most of the "cancelling" attempts I've seen over the years. Fox execs, however, are under no obligation to agree with you.

> Should someone celebrating something bad happening to a man that's calling for mass-murder get cancelled?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Kirk and Kilmeade are different people.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> it's objectively not what you're representing it as

Well, they represented it as "the mass-murder of mentally ill people". There's lots of them (mass), they're being intentionally killed against their will (murder), and the vast majority of chronically homeless people are mentally ill.

Maximally, it is subjectively not how they represent it, if one believes that a state-sanctioned judicial killing is not murder. That is far from a universal belief.

[zahlman]

If I said that I wanted to grab some leftovers from the fridge that would not mean that I considered anything in the fridge to be an acceptable meal.

I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason: because that's the part that makes the claim a misrepresentation.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason

This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness. You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

[zahlman]

> This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

It is objectively a misrepresentation. It was misrepresented as being about mentally ill people in general. In reality, it is about an identifiable subset of mentally ill people, for a clear reason that directly relates to the basis for subset identification. To describe it as "the mass-murder of mentally ill people" is to imply that it doesn't have anything to do with the government assistance question. But it does. That is what makes it misrepresentative.

> I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness.

Many mentally ill people do not refuse government assistance. In fact, probably a large majority of them are happy to receive government assistance.

> You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

I am not stating that the policy is justified because they are mentally ill. I am not stating, and did not state, that the policy is justified at all. In fact, I explicitly said:

> I disagree with it, but it's objectively not what you're representing it as.

I will not reply to you further, because this is not a good-faith discussion — it is just you repeatedly refusing to acknowledge something that I have clearly established, and falsely claiming that I said things that I objectively did not say.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> this is not a good-faith discussion

That seems to happen a lot to you. You should consider your part in that.

> I disagree with it

This is not exclusive with justifying it.

> No, only those who refuse government assistance.

> Which inherently makes them a threat to others. Keep in mind that this is happening in the context of Iryna Zarutska getting stabbed to death.