Thanks for your response (and your sats)!
Yes, I'm 100% certain that he was killed for his words, because as far as I know, he was not known to be a violent man. His enemies, however, certainly DID interpret his words as violence, enough so that they felt that killing him was an acceptable solution.
Which brings me to your original post, in which you said that violence is not always evil, and speech sometimes is. Clearly you did not mean to justify Kirk's murder with what you said, but not only is it possible to do so, that IS in fact precisely what his enemies are doing.
Now I'm wondering, between actions and words, which do you think has the greater power to keep humans living in fear and disconnected from the divine? To Charlie's enemies, his words WERE speech intended to keep them living in fear, while to his allies, killing him was an action designed to keep THEM living in fear.
This leads me to the conclusion that either one of them is right and the other is wrong (i.e. one side did greater evil than the other), or BOTH are wrong because both did something the other perceived as evil. Clearly they cannot both be right, because both made the other live in fear.
So, what is the solution to this dilemma? Who was more justified in their approach to what they saw as evil?
cmdrkeen
npub174…ylth2
2025-09-16 21:10:38 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…9zhq
Author Public Key
npub174tphl6zaczjxvm6k8rrsl7282457apjqf9cm2mrvwev098vz48slylth2Seen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2025-09-16 21:10:38 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "d1c2155920e906cac049d5c45e59521446652ede0786682f0c5fbc4dae4de206",
"pubkey": "f5561bff42ee0523337ab1c6387fca3aab4f7432024b8dab6363b2c794ec154f",
"created_at": 1758057038,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7b4d5e4431dfa665a9b57b270771bbfc987bc03e892d987de3e6f7cb470c627c",
"wss://relay.damus.io",
"root",
"96c87765d900b169f5fdd8bc19bf97bd8c6d163ff416a89d45cbb7cac48c9433"
],
[
"e",
"5dd2caf0866721bf6960c56a795a01b216627a7e5d0e481cd0cbe75f28e41f5e",
"wss://relay.damus.io",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1afe0c74e3d7784eba93a5e3fa554a6eeb01928d12739ae8ba4832786808e36d",
"wss://premium.primal.net/"
],
[
"p",
"96c87765d900b169f5fdd8bc19bf97bd8c6d163ff416a89d45cbb7cac48c9433",
"wss://relay.nostr.com.au/"
],
[
"p",
"91a5b259424ed339d38cca0e7b306bc1bf648b0c34a9501eebf169b1102607a0",
"wss://nostr.land/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.damus.io/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.primal.net/"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nostr.tavux.tech/"
]
],
"content": "Thanks for your response (and your sats)!\n\nYes, I'm 100% certain that he was killed for his words, because as far as I know, he was not known to be a violent man. His enemies, however, certainly DID interpret his words as violence, enough so that they felt that killing him was an acceptable solution. \n\nWhich brings me to your original post, in which you said that violence is not always evil, and speech sometimes is. Clearly you did not mean to justify Kirk's murder with what you said, but not only is it possible to do so, that IS in fact precisely what his enemies are doing. \n\nNow I'm wondering, between actions and words, which do you think has the greater power to keep humans living in fear and disconnected from the divine? To Charlie's enemies, his words WERE speech intended to keep them living in fear, while to his allies, killing him was an action designed to keep THEM living in fear. \n\nThis leads me to the conclusion that either one of them is right and the other is wrong (i.e. one side did greater evil than the other), or BOTH are wrong because both did something the other perceived as evil. Clearly they cannot both be right, because both made the other live in fear.\n\nSo, what is the solution to this dilemma? Who was more justified in their approach to what they saw as evil? ",
"sig": "75f1079389acdfd988ac6ff11aa0e8106dae006597a1c6cf157dd62c0cc3e1d2a62d3f733fd827ffc3de08de9a60e04fc8e6ee028ce336469e55f4e7f66c482f"
}