[Northern Light]

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a public religious conversation.

I'm not sure I believe Mr. Kirk was sincerely a Christian, but that is neither here nor there.

This was a public statement. Not private.

He also chose not to separate out the penalty portion. Advocating for the death of millions which endorsing that text necessarily requires; that it is hate speech, you can't say you believe the statement is right, unambiguously, in public, and then say 'but he only meant it as '................ as what? The statement calls for what it calls for. And his description was to suggest it was 'perfect'.

I find you are trying to misrepresent Mr.Kirk's views here, to what end I am not sure.

But I don't think he was in anyway equivocal. For context, the woman he was answering to was suggesting that Christ advocated a message of love, and implied that same was the highest commandment, and brooked no exception that there were any unworthy of love.

This was Kirk answering that in which he basically said.......... the bible clearly says there ARE people unworthy of love. That was him repudiating her.

Now.....enough religion please I'm not religious and have no desire to delve into theological scholarship. Though I assure you my knowledge is strong enough for it. But this is not that thread.........and the subject doesn't interest me in any event.

Kirk was a hater. Not just of gays, but of many groups. The quotes are endless. While you might pick a hole in one or two (not this one) .....there are too many to count.

He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada.

Yes it is, and its my right to describe his belief as hateful and revilible and that it speaks poorly of him as a human being.

I've been respectful to this point. But I will tell you, your defense of him is not a good look.

This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

The text he referenced does call for the death penalty for gays and he did call that text perfect. It is you who seem confused on this point.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Considering that pretty much every Christian denomination believes that the Old Testament civil laws aren't binding today, I have an idea of what Charlie would believe, but we'll never know now because we live in the era where people get gunned down for beliefs they don't bother to actually investigate.

Wait a second here - we don't know why he was gunned down for at all, considering we don't even know the individual committing the act, much less their motivation.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

I'm not sure I believe Mr. Kirk was sincerely a Christian, but that is neither here nor there.

This was a public statement. Not private.

He also chose not to separate out the penalty portion. Advocating for the death of millions which endorsing that text necessarily requires is hate speech, you can't say you believe the statement is right, unambiguously, in public, and then say 'but he only meant is as '................ as what? The statement calls for what it calls for. And his description was to suggest it was 'perfect'.

I find you are trying to misrepresent Mr.Kirk's views here, to what end I am not sure.

But I don't think he was in anyway equivocal. For context, the woman he was answering to was suggesting that Christ advocated a message of love, and implied that same was the highest commandment, and brooked no exception that there were any unworthy of love.

This was Kirk answering that in which basically said.......... the bible clearly says there ARE people unworthy of love. That was him repudiating her.

Now.....enough religion please I'm not religious and have no desire to delve into theological scholarship. Though I assure you my knowledge is strong enough for it. But this is not that thread.........and the subject doesn't interest me in any event.

Kirk was a hater. Not just of gays, but of many groups. The quotes are endless. While you might pick a whole in one or two (not this one) .....there are too many to count.




Yes it is, and its my right to describe his belief as hateful and revilible and that is speaks poorly of him as a human being.

I've been respectful to this point. But I will tell you, your defense of him is not a good look.



The text he referenced does call for the death penalty for gays and he did call that text perfect. It is you who seem confused on this point.

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look. He didn't call for the execution of gay people and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

Just for context, I am not a follower of Charlie Kirk. I never watched his content, but I knew who he was. I am a passionate defender of good faith dialogue. I was the president of a debate club during my time at the University of Toronto, and I hate to see people being murdered for arguing their case. This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there. The aftermath of this assassination will make America (and possibly Canada) worse off. Of that, I am sure.

 

[Mihairokov]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade.

If we're calling spades spades then Charlie was a racist white supremacist fuck who thought black people should still be slaves, who thought his daughter if raped should bring the child to birth, who thought Palestinians were imaginary, and who thought everyone should have a gun at all times and ended up on the end of that rhetoric. I won't stand for anyone trying to defend his bullshit. Nothing in his life was ever close to good faith dialogue.

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there.

Pretty sure it died when the GOP let January 6th happen, and if not then then when the Minnesota lawmakers were assassinated and Republicans were laughing about it.

 

[Northern Light]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie,

Yes....

but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look.

I have not defended a lie. I looked right at the video you provided, twice, and I am accurately representing the words he offered. I have not mis-stated or mis-attributed anything, not one word.

He didn't call for the execution of gay people

He explicitly endorsed text that did just that. It is what it is.

and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

I'm not sure anyone was charging him with anything, but if the court were simply asked to rule, did Mr. Kirk endorse this text; and does this text call for the execution of gays, the answer would be 'yes' in both cases.

Just for context, I am not a follower of Charlie Kirk. I never watched his content, but I knew who he was. I am a passionate defender of good faith dialogue.

I'm not sure I accept that. I have corrected you, with evidence provided by you, which unequivocally supports my take. A good faith dialogue requires you to admit the obvious and concede the point. Obstinance in the face of being proven wrong is not truth or good faith or dialogue. Its disingenuous, bad faith arguing.

But lets move on, shall we?

I was the president of a debate club during my time at the University of Toronto

My alma mater.

A fine school; but that's not a blanket endorsement of every professor or student.

and I hate to see people being murdered for arguing their case.

I agree. But you would do more to prevent its repetition by simply admitting Mr.Kirk was despised and fairly so. Then we can have an honest discussion around the fact that people being despicable is insufficient reason to assassinate them (on which we agree); then move on to what one can realistically do then to make that less likely in the future. Hint, defending Mr. Kirk will not lower the temperature any.........

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there. The aftermath of this assassination will make America (and possibly Canada) worse off. Of that, I am sure.

Quite possible. There is much that has gone wrong in democracies of the west the last several decades. Its not a terrible story of endless woe, and indeed there have been many bright spots.

But there certainly has been an increase in militancy/extremism and a coarsening of public debate.

There are a host of reasons for that, and this thread simply isn't the right spot. But certainly, I will concur that this assassination is unlikely to prove helpful in anyway (which wouldn't excuse it any event) and may well contribute to a worsening of the situation, particularly in the country to our south.

 

[Northern Light]

If we're calling spades spades then Charlie was a racist white supremacist fuck who thought black people should still be slaves, who thought his daughter if raped should bring the child to birth, who thought Palestinians were imaginary, and who thought everyone should have a gun at all times and ended up on the end of that rhetoric. I won't stand for anyone trying to defend his bullshit. Nothing in his life was ever close to good faith dialogue.

Pretty sure it died when the GOP let January 6th happen, and if not then then when the Minnesota lawmakers were assassinated and Republicans were laughing about it.

I think the erosion of public discourse long precedes those events, which were new low points in each case.

Its worth saying, that the general trendline towards more extremism in political discourse is not unique to the U.S.. Hateful speech has been the hallmark of AFD in Germany, and far right movements in France, the U.K. and Italy amongst others.

But the extent, and extremeness in the U.S. context is more acute, no denying that. It took decades to get to where we are..........one could pick so many points.......

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there.

Just to echo the sentiment of a lot of people in this thread: the only reason the democracy is under threat is because of people like Kirk - people spreading vile, hateful and divisive rhetoric that leads to politically divided and polarized society. He is the reason we can no longer have any "good faith dialogue" because people like him leave no space for that in the message they preach. The "us vs. them" mentality is not conducive to dialogue, but it is conducive to tribe mentality and only promotes political violence. The irony is that Kirk met his demise at the pointy end of the hateful political discourse he himself has cultivated.

And I would add that people like you, people that elevate Kirk into martyrdom for their supposed sacrifice at the altar of free speech, such people are a much bigger threat to democracy.

 

[zang]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look. He didn't call for the execution of gay people and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

Kirk in his own words, advocating violence against trans people:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626747081275715585

 

[picard102]

Considering that pretty much every Christian denomination believes that the Old Testament civil laws aren't binding today, I have an idea of what Charlie would believe, but we'll never know now because we live in the era where people get gunned down for beliefs they don't bother to actually investigate.

What we do know is you're twisting in the wind to lie to us about his explicitly stated beliefs to suit your agenda.

 

[Mrgeosim]

Yes....



I have not defended a lie. I looked right at the video you provided, twice, and I am accurately representing the words he offered. I have not mis-stated or mis-attributed anything, not one word.



He explicitly endorsed text that did just that. It is what it is.



I'm not sure anyone was charging him with anything, but if the court were simply asked to rule, did Mr. Kirk endorse this text; and does this text call for the execution of gays, the answer would 'yes' in both cases.



I'm not sure I accept that. I have corrected you, with evidence provided by you, which unequivocally supports my take. A good faith dialogue requires to admit the obvious and concede the point. Obstinance in the face of being proven wrong is not truth or good faith or dialogue. Its disingenuous, bad faith arguing.

But lets move on, shall we?



My alma mater.

A fine school; but that's not a blanket endorsement of every professor or student.



I agree. But you would do more to prevent is repetition by simply admitting Mr.Kirk was despised and fairly so. Then we can have an honest discussion around the fact that people being despicable is insufficient reason to assassinate them (on which we agree); then move on to what one can realistically do then to make that less likely in the future. Hint, defending Mr. Kirk will not lower the temperature any.........



Quite possible. There is much that has gone wrong in democracies of the west the last several decades. Its not terrible story of endless woe, and indeed there have been many bright spots.

But there certainly has been an increase in militancy/extremism and a coarsening of public debate.

There are a host of reasons for that, and this thread simply isn't the right spot. But certainly, I will concur that this assassination is unlikely to prove helpful in anyway (which wouldn't excuse it any event) and may well contribute to a worsening of the situation, particularly in the country to our south.

I am not being obstinate and I hardly feel that my counter points constitute bad faith arguing. I don't believe you've shown that the accusation against Charlie Kirk is accurate though I am relieved that you at least believe he didn't deserve to be murdered, which is clearly not a view shared by everyone here. The accusation against Charlie Kirk that I was addressing is that he advocated for the stoning of gay people. I referenced the video that people had used as evidence, and in it he was having an intramural Christian disagreement about a point of Christian doctrine relating to the meaning of the "love thy neighbour" passage in the Old Testament. Charlie Kirk disagreed with the extent of the application of that passage and offered a passage as counter-evidence that in the same passage where "love they neighbour" occurs, you find the passage about stoning gay people. He used that as a reference for his religious argument about the bounds and limits of what love would mean in that text. He endorsed the text because he is a Christian but his application was religious in nature and he never extrapolated it to the political realm or advocated for its application today, and it would put him at odds with virtually every Christian denomination if he did. There isn't a single Christian denomination that supports the application of Old Testament civil laws today (check Chat GPT) but that is beside the point. Charlie Kirk wasn't advocating for the execution of gay people and it is clear to anyone applying any degree of forensic analysis to the words he used in that video. You did not give evidence that clearly demonstrates that Charlie Kirk was calling for the execution of gay people. You said that his endorsement of the text would be proof of his guilt regarding the accusation that he is calling for the execution of gay people, but this is the association fallacy. The endorsement of a text broadly does not logically necessitate the endorsement of every aspect or application of it.

I am fine to leave this matter because I don't believe continuing this conversation is a profitable use of anyone's time and I agree that this thread isn't the best place for it. I will only say that I hope our American friends can move past this and end the tide of political violence that has taken hold.

 

[afransen]

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a religious conversation. He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

So, it is god's perfect law, but he doesn't think it should be applied?

 

[PinkLucy]

So, it is god's perfect law, but he doesn't think it should be applied?

the problem with the Old and New Testaments and Christianity, is that Jesus refuted many of the teachings of the Old Testament. So what do we get to cherry pick and what do Christians fall back on as teachings and guidance? The Old Testament is fire and brimstone and an eye for an eye; the New Testament is kindness and caring and turn the other cheek. Two very different approaches that the same people cite whenever whichever of them suits their purposes.

And Kirk talked about his God-given right to bear arms. Where did Jesus say that? I always want to ask today's Christians what Jesus would say about many of the current policies and leanings.

 

[afransen]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look. He didn't call for the execution of gay people and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

Just for context, I am not a follower of Charlie Kirk. I never watched his content, but I knew who he was. I am a passionate defender of good faith dialogue. I was the president of a debate club during my time at the University of Toronto, and I hate to see people being murdered for arguing their case. This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there. The aftermath of this assassination will make America (and possibly Canada) worse off. Of that, I am sure.

We should hate people being murdered, period. And yet, Trump and the rest of the right have been more effusive in their condemnation of this murder than any of the many thousands of Palestinian civilians. Or even of their fellow Americans of a different political persuasion.

 

[afransen]

There isn't a single Christian denomination that supports the application of Old Testament civil laws today (check Chat GPT) but that is beside the point.

Most denominations will pick and choose which they like.

 

[gabe]

We should hate people being murdered, period. And yet, Trump and the rest of the right have been more effusive in their condemnation of this murder than any of the many thousands of Palestinian civilians. Or even of their fellow Americans of a different political persuasion.

I agree and but also the far left groups have also ignored that Palestine is extremely anti LGBT+. Hamas will kill you for being gay or trans. Where is outrage from the far left there? “In the case of homosexuality…they shall be killed.” - Hamas leader. People like Charlie Kirk on the far right and far left are just opposite sides of the same coin Not much difference between the two groups. Both far left and far right are idoits.