8 ms·

> “Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,” Bulso responded. Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’

> “Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,” Bulso responded. Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”

TitaRusell 6mo ago
It was the textbook "reap what you sow" moment. In the Netherlands we've learned that you don't have to respect people but you do have to tolerate them because the alternative is a never ending civil war. It comes with having a diverse society of various cultural and religious backgrounds.
- paxcoder 6mo ago
  [dead]
- shibapuppie 6mo ago
  I'm trans. Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?
  - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
    > Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die? What are the limits of your non-tolerance with regards to someone who is limited to hating you and expressing verbal approval of legal but extreme punishment for people like you? Answering that question is necessary in order to know if you, and the person you replied to, have the same understanding of the word "tolerance". For the record, the kind of people who hate you are easily criticized unless they are assassinated, after that they become more or less impervious to criticism.
    - shibapuppie 6mo ago
      Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will. I don't want harm to befall anyone, but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. That's not tolerable. Go troll somewhere else.
      - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
        > Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will. "Strike first" is the other name of preemptive war - the most fundamental principle of those you desire to strike... Are you really different? > but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. If you look closely you may find yourself among them. > Go troll somewhere else. Another projection - the troll preemptively yelling "catch the troll". If you could escape your obsession with extreme violence and converse like a normal person, you'd find out that there are a lot better ways to deal with dumb ideas. Alas, not today.
        shibapuppie 6mo ago
        I'm not reading that. Thanks, but you're wasting your time. Go troll somewhere else.
- estimator7292 6mo ago
  "You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.
  - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - shibapuppie 6mo ago
      Ah, I see. You're just a troll.
      - thisisidiotic 6mo ago
        I think you fail to understand what trolling actually is. People here are genuinely trying to communicate with you.
        shibapuppie 6mo ago
        Not that person, thanks for your opinion though. If evocative language is communication to you, don't communicate with me again, please.
lordloki 6mo ago
You recall incorrectly, as he was using that example in the bible as to why you don't follow a literal interpretation.
- rexpop 6mo ago
  The straightforward way to read a self-professed Christian—and biblical literalist—characterizing a chapter of the Bible as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law” is as an endorsement of the laws in that chapter—in this case, condoning the stoning to death of non-celibate gay people.
  - bigmealbigmeal 6mo ago
    It doesn't matter what is "straightforward", it matters what is true. Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death. That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death. (And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
    - Throaway199999 6mo ago
      He's saying that instead of loving gays as your neighbour you should kill them
      - bigmealbigmeal 6mo ago
        [dead]
      - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
        "You" should? Who is "you"? Just any guy on the street who decides someone else is wrong? I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time. For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like. The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing. So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation. Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.

> “Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,” Bulso responded. Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”

TitaRusell 6mo ago

It was the textbook "reap what you sow" moment. In the Netherlands we've learned that you don't have to respect people but you do have to tolerate them because the alternative is a never ending civil war. It comes with having a diverse society of various cultural and religious backgrounds.

paxcoder 6mo ago
[dead]
shibapuppie 6mo ago
I'm trans. Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  > Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die? What are the limits of your non-tolerance with regards to someone who is limited to hating you and expressing verbal approval of legal but extreme punishment for people like you? Answering that question is necessary in order to know if you, and the person you replied to, have the same understanding of the word "tolerance". For the record, the kind of people who hate you are easily criticized unless they are assassinated, after that they become more or less impervious to criticism.
  - shibapuppie 6mo ago
    Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will. I don't want harm to befall anyone, but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. That's not tolerable. Go troll somewhere else.
    - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
      > Are you trying to get me to say I won't strike first? Because I will. "Strike first" is the other name of preemptive war - the most fundamental principle of those you desire to strike... Are you really different? > but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. If you look closely you may find yourself among them. > Go troll somewhere else. Another projection - the troll preemptively yelling "catch the troll". If you could escape your obsession with extreme violence and converse like a normal person, you'd find out that there are a lot better ways to deal with dumb ideas. Alas, not today.
      - shibapuppie 6mo ago
        I'm not reading that. Thanks, but you're wasting your time. Go troll somewhere else.
estimator7292 6mo ago
"You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - shibapuppie 6mo ago
    Ah, I see. You're just a troll.
    - thisisidiotic 6mo ago
      I think you fail to understand what trolling actually is. People here are genuinely trying to communicate with you.
      - shibapuppie 6mo ago
        Not that person, thanks for your opinion though. If evocative language is communication to you, don't communicate with me again, please.

lordloki 6mo ago

You recall incorrectly, as he was using that example in the bible as to why you don't follow a literal interpretation.

rexpop 6mo ago
The straightforward way to read a self-professed Christian—and biblical literalist—characterizing a chapter of the Bible as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law” is as an endorsement of the laws in that chapter—in this case, condoning the stoning to death of non-celibate gay people.
- bigmealbigmeal 6mo ago
  It doesn't matter what is "straightforward", it matters what is true. Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death. That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death. (And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
  - Throaway199999 6mo ago
    He's saying that instead of loving gays as your neighbour you should kill them
    - bigmealbigmeal 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
      "You" should? Who is "you"? Just any guy on the street who decides someone else is wrong? I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time. For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like. The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing. So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation. Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.