Just now, simple1 said:

 

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

Yeah, I get it, no point in showing up with a knife at a gunfight. 

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Ignoring this: He agreed with a statement from the bible that says kill homosexuals. Which is idiotic and in doing so, shows he is a nasty piece of work

No, that is a myth.  He did NOT agree with the Bible verse about putting to death men who have sex with other men.  He merely noted the verse exists.  You can read the full background here:

 

Stephen King Apologizes for Claiming Charlie Kirk ‘Advocated Stoning Gays’: 'This Is What I Get for Reading’ X Without ‘Fact-Checking’ 

Stephen King apologized Friday for claiming that the conservative activist Charlie Kirk “advocated stoning gays.” 

“I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages,” the 77-year-old author wrote on the social media platform X.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/stephen-king-apologizes-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236516429/

 

Many of the claims of Charlie Kirk holding extreme views are the result of misquoting what he actually said or taking the quote so far out of context the real meaning is lost.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

No, that is a myth.  He did NOT agree with the Bible verse about putting to death men who have sex with other men.  He merely noted the verse exists. 

 

 

Can u give us a quote or a video where he explicitly condemned Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death? As it's such a heinous passage I'm sure he would have been anxious to denounce this clearly stated word of God to clear up any assumption that he agreed with it. 

 

Personally I doubt that he did want gays murdered, just converted and made celibate. I don't know which is worse. 🙂 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

Another proposing martyrdom for Charlie?

 

Go the t-shirt yet?

All you seem to have are questions....

If you have nothing of substance to offer, why don't you just write nothing.

Charlie Kirk had something to say, based on his accumulated knowledge.

Until you acquire enough knowledge yourself, stay away from the keyboard. You do not have to show that you possess little knowledge.

You know the saying, "better be quiet and look stupid, than write or speak, and prove it.".

 

 

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

No, that is a myth.  He did NOT agree with the Bible verse about putting to death men who have sex with other men.  He merely noted the verse exists.  You can read the full background here:

 

Stephen King Apologizes for Claiming Charlie Kirk ‘Advocated Stoning Gays’: 'This Is What I Get for Reading’ X Without ‘Fact-Checking’ 

Stephen King apologized Friday for claiming that the conservative activist Charlie Kirk “advocated stoning gays.” 

“I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages,” the 77-year-old author wrote on the social media platform X.

https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/stephen-king-apologizes-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236516429/

 

Many of the claims of Charlie Kirk holding extreme views are the result of misquoting what he actually said or taking the quote so far out of context the real meaning is lost.

 

Exactly this. Opponents appear perfectly content to brush aside nuance, misquote, misrepresent, and twist what has been said.

 

There seems to be a deliberate strain of intellectual dishonesty at play, with some commentators wilfully pulling the wool over their own eyes in order to paint the most outrageously negative picture possible - one that conveniently aligns with their preferred rhetoric.

 

All the while, so few show the mental balance or discipline to seek out the facts and examine these events with any degree of objectivity, free from bias.

 

 

4 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

Can u give us a quote or a video where he explicitly condemned Leviticus 20:13 which states that homosexuals should be put to death? As it's such a heinous passage I'm sure he would have been anxious to denounce this clearly stated word of God to clear up any assumption that he agreed with it. 

 

No, I can't.  I doubt such a quote or video exists.  Why in the world would Charlie Kirk "condemn" or "denounce" a Bible verse?  The Old Testament Book of Leviticus gave rules of ritual and conduct for a desert people who lived more than 3,500 years ago.  Christians have never been bound by the laws of the old covenant between Yahweh and the Israelites described in Leviticus.

 

Here is another example in which Charlie Kirk was misquoted. It was a heavy-duty mistake by The New York Times.

 

Fact Check Reveals Misattributed Charlie Kirk Remark

The New York Times has issued a correction after its article misattributed an antisemitic remark to Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. The correction quickly drew criticism over the paper’s post‑assassination coverage and editorial review. The Times noted that the earlier version of the article mischaracterized the remark and corrected the piece. The incident was fact checked by numerous outlets.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fact-check-reveals-misattributed-charlie-kirk-remark/ss-AA1MY9x0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEESS&cvid=68cf732eab8748edb29f32e632e0fce3&ei=52#image=1

On 9/20/2025 at 3:53 AM, impulse said:

 

Don't forget the follow-ons.  Higher dropout and failure rate because they're just not prepared when they arrive, then saddled with student loan debt that they can't pay off. 

 

And on and on.

Do you have data to support that position?

On 9/20/2025 at 3:52 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

He shoots. He SCORES!!! 🤣

Your false claim was exposed and this is your response?

What part of not understanding that McDonnell Douglas was a failed organization  and a culture not set up for long term stability? The investors wanted immediate profits. McDonnell Douglas managers said they would deliver. Boeing managers said, no, they wanted to focus on quality. After the merger, Boeing managers were displaced by  McDonnell Douglas managers who were short term profit fixated. They were the people  cutting the production times and  setting the company up to fail. The aviaiton industry consensus was that this was in effect a reverse takeover organized by investment groups intent on  making as much profit as quickly as they could. It's the origin of Boeing's problems.  New Boeing was not old Boeing.  it had nothing to do with DEI. You are too arrogant and biased to  acknowledge that you are pushing your own political bias with your false statements.

9 hours ago, Andre0720 said:

All you seem to have are questions....

If you have nothing of substance to offer, why don't you just write nothing.

Charlie Kirk had something to say, based on his accumulated knowledge.

Until you acquire enough knowledge yourself, stay away from the keyboard. You do not have to show that you possess little knowledge.

You know the saying, "better be quiet and look stupid, than write or speak, and prove it.".

 

 

 

You don't want to answer the questions, so until you do, I'm free to post what I like and you are free to think what you like.

 

Suck it up @Andre0720, it's an anonymous internet forum after all.

On 9/20/2025 at 12:12 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Charlie Kirk has participated in hundreds of debates, consistently inviting polite discussion - even from those who are openly rude to him. On numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to protect opposing participants from verbal attacks by the audience, emphasising that everyone has the right to voice and defend their viewpoints.

 

His guiding principle has always been the promotion of discussion. Without open dialogue, understanding is impossible. The very essence of debate is to confront differing perspectives respectfully, not to vilify those who hold them.

 

It is, therefore, fundamentally flawed to label someone as a “horrible person” simply because others disagree with them.

 

There is no credible evidence to suggest that Charlie Kirk is inherently cruel or malicious. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that he engages with sensitive topics politely. His arguments may be controversial or disagreeable to some, but they do not demonstrate personal nastiness that would justify such extreme characterisation.

 

Being divisive or holding unpopular opinions does not equate to being horrible - it simply reflects the reality that not everyone will agree with one’s perspective. Debate is not about personal animosity; it is about the exchange of ideas.

 

 

And he made hundreds of millions of dollars pushing buttons, regurgitating right wing talking points, and defending Israel (who originally funded him). 

4 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

And he made hundreds of millions of dollars pushing buttons, regurgitating right wing talking points, and defending Israel (who originally funded him). 

Got to have Jews in there, can't have left wing socialist conspiracy without a Jew hiding out somewhere

9 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

No, I can't.  I doubt such a quote or video exists.  Why in the world would Charlie Kirk "condemn" or "denounce" a Bible verse?  

Why? Because that particular Bible verse is evil but Kirk thought it was the word of God. I would have thought that was obvious. If you're going in to bat for God at all levels you've got to be prepared to defend all the evil stuff. You could get away with it in ancient times by instilling fear in people but it doesn't wash today. 

 

It's no good saying ah well, those were the laws of the day when you proclaim it's God's law in the Bible. You can't have it both ways. There are some Christians who believe that the Bible wasn't innerrant but not Kirk. Thats why he and others try to skirt around the dodgy bits by deflection. 

 

If Kirk wants to say that homosexuality is an abomination then that's up to him; its just a viewpoint but murdering them for it is different.  

 

As I stated earlier I don't think Kirk wanted gays to be put to death or at least he knew you couldn't get away with it now,  but I do think he thought of them as something that needed fixing (he called homosexuality an error) and therefore he saw them as unequal. 

 

In response to the title of this thread I think Kirk was an inherently good man but he espoused some vile religious views. He was the one who needed fixing, but not in that way God rest his soul.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Why? Because that particular Bible verse is evil but Kirk thought it was the word of God. I would have thought that was obvious. If you're going in to bat for God at all levels you've got to be prepared to defend all the evil stuff. You could get away with it in ancient times by instilling fear in people but it doesn't wash today. 

 

It's no good saying ah well, those were the laws of the day when you proclaim it's God's law in the Bible. You can't have it both ways. There are some Christians who believe that the Bible wasn't innerrant but not Kirk. Thats why he and others try to skirt around the dodgy bits by deflection. 

 

If Kirk wants to say that homosexuality is an abomination then that's up to him; its just a viewpoint but murdering them for it is different.  

 

As I stated earlier I don't think Kirk wanted gays to be put to death or at least he knew you couldn't get away with it now,  but I do think he thought of them as something that needed fixing (he called homosexuality an error) and therefore he saw them as unequal. 

 

In response to the title of this thread I think Kirk was an inherently good man but he espoused some vile religious views. He was the one who needed fixing, but not in that way God rest his soul.

 

 

 

 

Leviticus 20:13 is Old Testament.

 

Kirk was a Christian.  "The difference between the Old and New Testaments is that the New Testament offers hope and restoration to those caught up in the sin of homosexuality through the redeeming power of Jesus. It is the same hope that is offered to anyone who chooses to accept it (John 1:12; 3:16–18)."

 

 

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The difference between the Old and New Testaments is that

There is no difference as they are both very poor works of fiction!

26 minutes ago, DezLez said:

There is no difference as they are both very poor works of fiction!

That's good, that's good Scotty, you real done good Scotty, he's a bad man Scotty, now put him in the cornfield Scotty, put him in the cornfield!

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's good, that's good

Thanks.

Pity the rest of your post is nonsensical as usual!

8 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

And he made hundreds of millions of dollars pushing buttons, regurgitating right wing talking points, and defending Israel (who originally funded him). 

 

Incorrect, oversimplified, dumbed down and flawed:

Why is it that so posters such as yourself enter debates with such poorly researched statements?

 

It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions, to raise suspicions, and to give personal opinions about why you may not have liked what Charlie Kirk had to say. That is the essence of honest debate.

 

But what is not acceptable is the repeated habit of posting outright falsehoods and presenting them as established fact. That behaviour exposes not only intellectual laziness – the unwillingness to properly research before speaking – but also a deeper flaw: a tendency to favour knee-jerk reactions over thoughtful, evidence-based discourse.

 

In doing so, you reveal that your goal is not truth or understanding, but simply “winning” an argument at any cost.

 

True debate requires discipline, intellectual honesty, and respect for facts. Anything less is not debate at all – it is posturing.

 

 

Here is a response the falsities within your comment: 

 

Charlie Kirk has long been openly pro-Israel, yet his support did not prevent him from publicly questioning Israel’s conduct on October 7. In fact, his willingness to ask uncomfortable questions – such as why the IDF appeared to delay its response for hours – set him apart from those who defend Israel unconditionally.

 

It is precisely this readiness to speak out that has fuelled extreme conspiracy theories surrounding his death, with some claiming that his criticisms of Israel may have made him a target and even speculating about possible Mossad involvement. While such claims remain unproven and highly controversial, their very existence highlights how significant his departure from the usual pro-Israel line was perceived to be.

 

In summary, Kirk pressed the uncomfortable issue of why the IDF’s response appeared to be delayed by up to 6 hours and raised the possibility of a stand-down order, forcing attention on intelligence lapses, operational confusion and unanswered command decisions.

 

Asking hard questions and offering criticism in that moment showed independence of judgement rather than blind allegiance. That said, it’s equally important to distinguish sober inquiry from sloppy reporting - many commentators rush to present speculation as fact, which damages honest debate and credibility.

 

Kirk’s stance on October 7 was both supportive of Israel and willing to hold it to account which is rather a contradiction (with proof) of your statement above claiming blind support.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

That's good, that's good Scotty, you real done good Scotty, he's a bad man Scotty, now put him in the cornfield Scotty, put him in the cornfield!

 

43 minutes ago, DezLez said:

Thanks.

Pity the rest of your post is nonsensical as usual!

 

His post makes a lot of sense to those familiar with classic U.S. TV.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

His post makes a lot of sense to those familiar with classic U.S. Tv.

And no sense what so ever to non US!

The surprising things I have noticed and also seen others become aware of, is the algorithms have served me his most polished sides where I could agree with Kirk on not many but some issues, and he have seen quite convincing, but later after I have digged a bit deeper I see now other sides of him that was obviously not good, and also cross editing some of his debates making the opponents look worse than they where. So good job by him and the algorithms. 

 

This is quite a phenomenon these days, and many falls for it, 

5 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

His post makes a lot of sense to those familiar with classic U.S. Tv.

 

 

Some entities can make most anything disappear, just like Bill Mumy.

23 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

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.

 

When someone equivalent to Charlie is assassinated i.e Ilhan Omar / AOC / Bernie etc ill concede your point. Until then left wing rhetoric is the side radicalising extremists to silence permanently those they disagree with and escalating tensions. 

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The surprising things I have noticed and also seen others become aware of, is the algorithms have served me his most polished sides where I could agree with Kirk on not many but some issues, and he have seen quite convincing, but later after I have digged a bit deeper I see now other sides of him that was obviously not good, and also cross editing some of his debates making the opponents look worse than they where. So good job by him and the algorithms. 

 

This is quite a phenomenon these days, and many falls for it, 

 

 

I completely agree with this observation....

In fact, it is arguably reflective of the entire modern media ecosystem. We are rarely presented with unfiltered, unedited dialogue; instead, we are systematically fed narratives shaped by algorithms designed to reinforce our existing biases.

 

These systems reward engagement, which often means amplifying content that confirms what we already believe, subtly nudging us toward extremes.

 

This process not only polarises perspectives but also deepens societal divisions. Opinions that deviate even slightly from the centre are increasingly caricatured: anything mildly left-of-centre is branded “radical left-wing,” while viewpoints even slightly right-of-centre are dismissed as "extreme or fascist right wing" by those with left-leaning tendencies. The middle ground - the nuanced space where one can recognise merits and flaws on both sides - has all but disappeared.

 

Society increasingly demands that individuals pick a side, framing moderation as intellectual or moral weakness.

 

The effect is self-reinforcing. In a media landscape dominated by extremes, the loudest, most radical voices drown out measured discourse. Those who wish to be heard feel compelled to shout louder, to push their rhetoric further to the margins. As a result, genuine, reasoned debate is smothered, replaced by the cacophony of sensationalism.

 

Social media, in particular, has exacerbated this problem: its content is heavily curated, often misleading, and frequently misrepresents reality. In such an environment, thoughtful, intelligent conversation struggles to survive.

 

Ultimately, this dichotomy perpetuates itself, standing in stark contrast to the eloquence, reasoning, and measured deliberation that underpin meaningful debate. The more society leans into the extremes, the more the space for moderation and nuance is eroded, leaving us with an intellectual echo chamber in which complexity is unwelcome and polarisation thrives.

 

This thread is a perfect example.

17 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Some entities can make most anything disappear, just like Bill Mumy.

 

That episode of the Twilight Zone contributed to U.S. culture a lasting metaphor for the dangers of dictatorial government.  I recall a political refugee to the U.S. said at the time the episode aired that it captured the feeling he had had living under the East German government.  It's also been used in recent years as a metaphor for "cancel culture" on both the left and right.

19 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Incorrect, oversimplified, dumbed down and flawed:

Why is it that so posters such as yourself enter debates with such poorly researched statements?

 

It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions, to raise suspicions, and to give personal opinions about why you may not have liked what Charlie Kirk had to say. That is the essence of honest debate.

 

But what is not acceptable is the repeated habit of posting outright falsehoods and presenting them as established fact. That behaviour exposes not only intellectual laziness – the unwillingness to properly research before speaking – but also a deeper flaw: a tendency to favour knee-jerk reactions over thoughtful, evidence-based discourse.

 

In doing so, you reveal that your goal is not truth or understanding, but simply “winning” an argument at any cost.

 

True debate requires discipline, intellectual honesty, and respect for facts. Anything less is not debate at all – it is posturing.

 

 

Here is a response the falsities within your comment: 

 

Charlie Kirk has long been openly pro-Israel, yet his support did not prevent him from publicly questioning Israel’s conduct on October 7. In fact, his willingness to ask uncomfortable questions – such as why the IDF appeared to delay its response for hours – set him apart from those who defend Israel unconditionally.

 

It is precisely this readiness to speak out that has fuelled extreme conspiracy theories surrounding his death, with some claiming that his criticisms of Israel may have made him a target and even speculating about possible Mossad involvement. While such claims remain unproven and highly controversial, their very existence highlights how significant his departure from the usual pro-Israel line was perceived to be.

 

In summary, Kirk pressed the uncomfortable issue of why the IDF’s response appeared to be delayed by up to 6 hours and raised the possibility of a stand-down order, forcing attention on intelligence lapses, operational confusion and unanswered command decisions.

 

Asking hard questions and offering criticism in that moment showed independence of judgement rather than blind allegiance. That said, it’s equally important to distinguish sober inquiry from sloppy reporting - many commentators rush to present speculation as fact, which damages honest debate and credibility.

 

Kirk’s stance on October 7 was both supportive of Israel and willing to hold it to account which is rather a contradiction (with proof) of your statement above claiming blind support.

 

 

 

 

Yes, posturing, thank you. That's my very point. Charlie Kirk wasn't an honest intellectual. He was always posturing. He focused on the most infammatory talking points that would stir up his base and extend his influence and popularity among far-right conservatives (MAGA).

 

In the beginning, Charlie was rabidly pro-Israel beause his funding came from Zionist billionaires, conservative groups that pushed a pro-Israel agenda, and probably Israel itself, although that point isn't clear because Israel is adept at laundering the money it supplies to the group it supports.

 

And, yes, you're right, Charlie Kirk was having second thoughts about his support for Israel. But the reason, in my opinion, is that his uncritical support of Israel was damaging his brand.  Poills were showing that anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of young people, 18-34, were opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza. That was Kirk's base, the people he had to please. It was also alienating him from other major influencers like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens,

 

Charlie no doubt realized that continued unfettered support would be damaging both to his movement and his future political ambitions.  It had nothing to do with ethics or moral clarity. It was purely a pragmatic decision. And naturally it invited pushback.  According to Candace Owens and Max Blumenthal, Bill Ackman organized an "intervention" (that's the way Candace described it) in the Hamptons, where Kirk was invited along with other major conservative social media influencers. According to Blumenthal, Kirk was pressured to soften his criticisms of Israel and offered what Candace called "a ton of money" (others put the figure at 150 million) .

 

Even if you don't trust Candace Owens (and I certainly don't) this scenario makes sense. Bill Ackman and other pro-zionist billionaires are well known for their attempts to influence public opinion through the liberal dispersion of dark money and/or threats and blackmail attempts. According to Blumenthal, Charlie turned down the money but was shaken up by what he had experienced. 

 

It makes sense that he would have rejected the offer, which would have made him a continued tool of Israel and the pro-Zionists. Kirk clearly had political ambitions (there was even talk of him running for president one day) and given the unpopularity of the war in Gaza and all of the rumors floating around of Israel influence on US policy (including allegations it had blackmail material on Donald Trump), it was only prudent to reassert his independence, especially since he didn't need the money anymore. Turning Point USA reportedly had over 500 million in assets.

 

Well, we know what happened after that. My main point though is that I believe that Charlie was much like Donald Trump: his political positions were more a matter of convenience that moral or ethical imperatives. Turning Point USA is the youth arm of MAGA, sort of like the Hitler Youth. And this was the means by which Kirk would position himself as the successor to Donald Trump.

 

 

1 hour ago, jaywalker2 said:

Yes, posturing, thank you. That's my very point. Charlie Kirk wasn't an honest intellectual. He was always posturing. He focused on the most infammatory talking points that would stir up his base and extend his influence and popularity among far-right conservatives (MAGA).

 

In the beginning, Charlie was rabidly pro-Israel beause his funding came from Zionist billionaires, conservative groups that pushed a pro-Israel agenda, and probably Israel itself, although that point isn't clear because Israel is adept at laundering the money it supplies to the group it supports.

 

And, yes, you're right, Charlie Kirk was having second thoughts about his support for Israel. But the reason, in my opinion, is that his uncritical support of Israel was damaging his brand.  Poills were showing that anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of young people, 18-34, were opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza. That was Kirk's base, the people he had to please. It was also alienating him from other major influencers like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens,

 

Charlie no doubt realized that continued unfettered support would be damaging both to his movement and his future political ambitions.  It had nothing to do with ethics or moral clarity. It was purely a pragmatic decision. And naturally it invited pushback.  According to Candace Owens and Max Blumenthal, Bill Ackman organized an "intervention" (that's the way Candace described it) in the Hamptons, where Kirk was invited along with other major conservative social media influencers. According to Blumenthal, Kirk was pressured to soften his criticisms of Israel and offered what Candace called "a ton of money" (others put the figure at 150 million) .

 

Even if you don't trust Candace Owens (and I certainly don't) this scenario makes sense. Bill Ackman and other pro-zionist billionaires are well known for their attempts to influence public opinion through the liberal dispersion of dark money and/or threats and blackmail attempts. According to Blumenthal, Charlie turned down the money but was shaken up by what he had experienced. 

 

It makes sense that he would have rejected the offer, which would have made him a continued tool of Israel and the pro-Zionists. Kirk clearly had political ambitions (there was even talk of him running for president one day) and given the unpopularity of the war in Gaza and all of the rumors floating around of Israel influence on US policy (including allegations it had blackmail material on Donald Trump), it was only prudent to reassert his independence, especially since he didn't need the money anymore. Turning Point USA reportedly had over 500 million in assets.

 

Well, we know what happened after that. My main point though is that I believe that Charlie was much like Donald Trump: his political positions were more a matter of convenience that moral or ethical imperatives. Turning Point USA is the youth arm of MAGA, sort of like the Hitler Youth. And this was the means by which Kirk would position himself as the successor to Donald Trump.

 

 

He wasn't an intellectual. Period.

On 9/21/2025 at 4:06 PM, 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.

 

I have checked it s stated in the bible in biblical language which is interpreted to give the meaning. I assume you think his death was justified after all free speech which is the 1st Amendment does not apply to anyone you disagree with. 

Posts from members insulting other members were removed. Please debate the topic without resorting to personal attacks. Thank you.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He wasn't an intellectual. Period.

And he never claimed to be. 

On 9/21/2025 at 2:33 AM, impulse said:

 

Floyd had in his blood test a cocktail of drugs that would have killed a lot of people and was already struggling to breathe while he was in the back of the cop car.  He wasn't murdered.  He died of a self inflicted overdose, exacerbated by resisting arrest. 

 

He was found guilty of murder largely because if the jury had acquitted, there would have been blood in the streets.  Which I refer to as "social extortion" by BLM.

 

Okay, and you know this because of ? Or you just want to believe? Thought so, 

 

but hey, they bomb boats in international waters now just in case without legal proofs. At least trump sees there is packages floating at the water and takes that as proofs. That’s how far this have gone now.