5 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

He never actually said that

He did.

Just now, FritsSikkink said:

He did.

He quoted from the bible. Get your facts straight. He also added that he didnt necessarily agree with it.

11 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

He quoted from the bible. Get your facts straight. He also added that he didnt necessarily agree with it.

He said he agreed, don't tell porkies.

Just now, dannyb123 said:

 

The relentless mantra of labelling those you disagree with who hold moderate conservative viewpoints fascists, is the hate speech being referred to. Over half the US are not nazi's yet the hard left want to try and shame and silence them by saying they are. If you dont tone down the rhetoric, this could actually descend into civil war.

 

The relentless mantra of labelling those you disagree with who hold moderate liberal viewpoints communists, is the hate speech being referred to. Over half of the US are not Commies, yet the hard right want to try and shame and silence them by saying they are. If you don't tone down the rhetoric, this could actually descend into an insurrection.

 

I guess it all comes down to what rabbit hole you dwell in and who you cohabit with while you're down there.

23 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

I bet Shapiro will be avoiding outdoor events. He likes the indoor stuff.

After this assassination, can you blame him?

15 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

He quoted from the bible. Get your facts straight. He also added that he didnt necessarily agree with it.

"Necessarily" ? Chris almighty, he was fond of quoting Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death and that it was “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” It's crystal clear what he said and what he was inferring. Homosexuals don't deserve to be killed either but that's the divine law he quoted when questioned.

10 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

22 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

He quoted from the bible. Get your facts straight. He also added that he didnt necessarily agree with it.

He said he agreed, don't tell porkies.

 

No he didn't...  Fact check your own comments.

 

 

In a June 2024 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, made a statement criticizing a YouTuber known as Ms. Rachel. He said:

 

“By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying.”

Then he contrasted that with Leviticus 19...  “love your neighbor as yourself” and said that part comes just before and that the chapter before (which includes the Leviticus 18 verse) “affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” 

 

So Kirk did cite part of Leviticus, and said that Leviticus 18 includes the command that a man who lies with another man “shall be stoned to death.”  However, the context has been removed from his quote which was designed to highlight that the YouTuber (Ms Rachel) had been selective in her quotes.

 

 

 

What is not true / what is disputed / correction

It has not been shown (from reliable sources) that Charlie Kirk explicitly said that he himself supports stoning gay people to death.

 

What he did was reference the Biblical text, and say that part of scripture affirms that “perfect law” in sexual matters. 

 

The claim “Charlie Kirk advocated for stoning gays to death” became viral after some people interpreted his remarks to mean endorsement. But that interpretation has been fact-checked and described as misleading. 

 

Stephen King, among others, made such claims (that Kirk had advocated for stoning gay people), and later apologized, saying he had not properly fact‐checked.

 

 

Kirk did not explicitly call for laws enforcing stoning gay people in modern civil society and did not state he agrees with such punishment.

 

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

"Necessarily" ? Chris almighty, he was fond of quoting Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death and that it was “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” It's crystal clear what he said and what he was inferring. Homosexuals don't deserve to be killed either but that's the divine law he quoted when questioned.

 

You have failed to understand the whole context.

 

Kirk was responding to Ms. Rachel, who had lifted a “love your neighbour” line from Leviticus 19.

 

Kirks point was that she was cherry-picking verses to fit a feel-good message while ignoring the rest of the chapter and the chapters around it. In pointing this out, he referenced Leviticus 18/20, where scripture prescribes death for male same-sex acts, and he said those passages affirm God’s “perfect law on sexual matters.”

 

That doesn’t mean he personally called for stoning gay people to death. It means he was countering one cherry-picked verse with another. Yet his own response has now been cherry-picked in turn, taken out of context and weaponised to attack him.

 

Fact-checkers, including FactCheck.org, have confirmed this: Kirk did not literally advocate that punishment, even if you dislike the way he framed his point.

 

This is why much of this whole debate is like playing chess with a pigeon – people knock over the pieces, sh!t on the board, then fly back to the flock claiming victory.

 

In the rush to condemn Kirk, people are being lazy, careless with facts, and far more interested in scoring points than in being accurate. Those who know what they are doing are being intellectually dishonest; those who simply parrot sound bites from other media sources are being clumsy with the information they choose to assimilate.

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Kirk did not explicitly call for laws enforcing stoning gay people in modern civil society and did not state he agrees with such punishment.

Kirk was an expert in twisting words, as to make it sound that he was not EXPLICITLY saying what he actually had in mind.

If you have time, check out the occasions when Charlie Kirk was a guest on the Youtube channel called "Whatever"- a show about the modern dating and relationship situation. He spent 2 to 3 hours at a time speaking to groups of young women who vehemently disagreed with him about most things. And he listened to them. He treated them with respect. And in turn they were remarkably well behaved (compared to what generally happens on the show).  You could see them beginning to understand and respect his beliefs, even if they were not swayed 100%.

 

It is far better than pulling random 4 or 5 second clips of "gotcha" from whatever biased source you may find. 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No you're not, you're averting the issue. I'm not a lefty btw, nor do i feel the need to label everyone. But coming from you I'll wear the badge with honour.

Okay, your not a lefty, you're a conservative, I got it.

 

I am asking you what you think his extreme viewpoints are, and you are refusing to say. 

 

I have listened to tens of hours of him talking over the years. You've listened to, or read a selective few clips, most always out of context and or doctored. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

If you have time, check out the occasions when Charlie Kirk was a guest on the Youtube channel called "Whatever"- a show about the modern dating and relationship situation. He spent 2 to 3 hours at a time speaking to groups of young women who vehemently disagreed with him about most things. And he listened to them. He treated them with respect. And in turn they were remarkably well behaved (compared to what generally happens on the show).  You could see them beginning to understand and respect his beliefs, even if they were not swayed 100%.

 

It is far better than pulling random 4 or 5 second clips of "gotcha" from whatever biased source you may find. 

They will never check anything. As soon as they start checking, their whole world falls apart. 

1 minute ago, CallumWK said:

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Kirk did not explicitly call for laws enforcing stoning gay people in modern civil society and did not state he agrees with such punishment.

Kirk was an expert in twisting words, as to make it sound that he was not EXPLICITLY saying what he actually had in mind.

 

Yet his own words have been stripped of context and weaponised against him. If you take the time to understand the full exchange - and why he cited that verse in response to the selective ‘cherry-picking’ of scripture - you can clearly see the point he was trying to make.

 

This is not the first time Kirk’s rhetoric has been twisted in this way. The same tactic was used with his remarks on affirmative action: quotes lifted out of context, cut down into soundbites, and then spun into a narrative designed to discredit him.

 

In both cases, the process is the same - strip the nuance, distort the intent, and weaponise the fragments.

 

 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No he didn't...  Fact check your own comments.

 

 

In a June 2024 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, made a statement criticizing a YouTuber known as Ms. Rachel. He said:

 

“By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying.”

Then he contrasted that with Leviticus 19...  “love your neighbor as yourself” and said that part comes just before and that the chapter before (which includes the Leviticus 18 verse) “affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” 

 

So Kirk did cite part of Leviticus, and said that Leviticus 18 includes the command that a man who lies with another man “shall be stoned to death.”  However, the context has been removed from his quote which was designed to highlight that the YouTuber (Ms Rachel) had been selective in her quotes.

 

 

 

What is not true / what is disputed / correction

It has not been shown (from reliable sources) that Charlie Kirk explicitly said that he himself supports stoning gay people to death.

 

What he did was reference the Biblical text, and say that part of scripture affirms that “perfect law” in sexual matters. 

 

The claim “Charlie Kirk advocated for stoning gays to death” became viral after some people interpreted his remarks to mean endorsement. But that interpretation has been fact-checked and described as misleading. 

 

Stephen King, among others, made such claims (that Kirk had advocated for stoning gay people), and later apologized, saying he had not properly fact‐checked.

 

 

Kirk did not explicitly call for laws enforcing stoning gay people in modern civil society and did not state he agrees with such punishment.

 

Oh come on. One would imagine he thought that all God's laws were immutable so why would he think that this one,which is crystal clear isn't? It's no good trying to provide so-called context with other bible passages to try to deflect what was actually said. That's something Christian apologists are extremely fond of but it won't wash.

 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yet his own words have been stripped of context and weaponised against him. If you take the time to understand the full exchange - and why he cited that verse in response to the selective ‘cherry-picking’ of scripture - you can clearly see the point he was trying to make.

 

This is not the first time Kirk’s rhetoric has been twisted in this way. The same tactic was used with his remarks on affirmative action: quotes lifted out of context, cut down into soundbites, and then spun into a narrative designed to discredit him.

 

In both cases, the process is the same - strip the nuance, distort the intent, and weaponise the fragments.

 

 

You act like they don't know they are lying. They do not care. 

Just now, Baht Simpson said:

Oh come on. One would imagine he thought that all God's laws were immutable so why would he think that this one,which is crystal clear isn't? It's no good trying to provide so-called context with other bible passages to try to deflect what was actually said. That's something Christian apologists are extremely fond of but it won't wash.

 

Just as one would imagine you, and the other haters here would lie and say anything to disparage him. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Kirk was an expert in twisting words, as to make it sound that he was not EXPLICITLY saying what he actually had in mind.

In this case it's true. Gays should be stoned to death in one passage but you should love your fellow man in another. 

3 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Mostly, yes.  Espousing Christian values in a country where Christianity is the number one religion is not extreme.  Let me think of some of his viewpoints and how radical they are;

 

Marriage is good.

Having kids in a marriage is good.

Abortion is evil and should be minimized. But women who get abortions should not be punished.

There are two genders.

Women's rights to safety and women only spaces should be respected.

Affirmative action is not good for anyone.

 

Yep, pretty radical...

Totally agree, Charlie Kirk primarily held moderate conservative viewpoints, aligning with mainstream GOP values (e.g., limited government, gun rights, anti-DEI, traditional family etc!!

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

In this case it's true. Gays should be stoned to death in one passage but you should love your fellow man in another. 

 

I don't think that with love your fellow man they meant shag him.

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What he did was reference the Biblical text, and say that part of scripture affirms that “perfect law” in sexual matters. 

So, he agreed with it, end of.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Just as one would imagine you, and the other haters here would lie and say anything to disparage him. 

 

 

Is that all you've got? Calling me a hater because of my assessment of what Kirk said? Are you not doing exactly what you condemn in others?

 

For your information I did not hate Charlie Kirk. I'm British so I haven't been as exposed to him as the Americans here and just thought him another Christian apologist until the shooting, which I thought was cruel and unnecessary. If I could click my fingers and get him back instantly I would, like any decent person.

 

I consider myself far-centre politically and have no tribal axe to grind., so I speak as I find. 

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

I don't think that with love your fellow man they meant shag him.

Totally missing the point.

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Kirks point was that she was cherry-picking verses to fit a feel-good message while ignoring the rest of the chapter and the chapters around it

Which is what everyone quoting the bible does.

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Totally missing the point.

 

No I'm not, Kirk used that verse to pretend he didn't agree with the other verse

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

No I'm not, Kirk used that verse to pretend he didn't agree with the other verse

Sorry, I didn't get what you were saying but I do now. 

10 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Is that all you've got? Calling me a hater because of my assessment of what Kirk said? Are you not doing exactly what you condemn in others?

 

For your information I did not hate Charlie Kirk. I'm British so I haven't been as exposed to him as the Americans here and just thought him another Christian apologist until the shooting, which I thought was cruel and unnecessary. If I could click my fingers and get him back instantly I would, like any decent person.

 

I consider myself far-centre politically and have no tribal axe to grind., so I speak as I find. 

No, I call you a hater because you are lying to disparage a dead man. 

 

For your information, if Charlie Kirk was calling for gays to killed, I would be applauding his death. 

 

I listened to him for tens of hours over the years. You? 

We are to believe that Charlie Kirk was calling for gays to be stoned to death, yes? We are also to believe that: 

 

Charlie Kirk was at hundreds of schools, speaking for thousands of hours, to hundreds of thousands of students. 

 

And that Charlie Kirk was campaigning for Trump, in 2016. 2020 and 2024.

 

And that Charlie Kirk spoke at both the 2020 and 2024 Republican National Convention. 

 

And that Charlie Kirk calling for gays to be stoned to death was not on the front page of every paper in the county. 

 

Seems a bit suspect to me. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I call you a hater because you are lying to disparage a dead man. 

 

For your information, if Charlie Kirk was calling for gays to killed, I would be applauding his death. 

 

I listened to him for tens of hours over the years. You? 

I quoted his exact words. How is that lying? 

 

And you would applaud Charlie Kirk's assasination if he expressed an extreme opinion? I wouldn't, whatever he said. God's aloft you are everything you criticize.

 

And no I haven't listened to him for tens of hours but I did see his debate at the Oxford Union and have seen a number clips since his assasination, but they're irrelevant to this one topic.

1 minute ago, Baht Simpson said:

I quoted his exact words. How is that lying? 

 

And you would applaud Charlie Kirk's assasination if he expressed an extreme opinion? I wouldn't, whatever he said. God's aloft you are everything you criticize.

 

And no I haven't listened to him for tens of hours but I did see his debate at the Oxford Union and have seen a number clips since his assasination, but they're irrelevant to this one topic.

Go with God brother

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You are a really high IQ leftist, that's why you are terrified of getting into an actual discussion with a dumba** MAGA like me. 

 

At least enough iQ to know it's a waste of time to have a 'discussion" with MAGA. I won't change your attitude, nor you mine