Leftists

[rightwinger]

Those are all positions of personal conviction and while maybe not tailored to your sensitivities are not vicious or hateful.

Each is debatable but not dismissible if one is open to honest debate. Thing is honest debate is challenge to your type.

Then you start assassinating .

Hate is a personal conviction

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Examples of Controversial / Hateful Comments by Charlie Kirk

1. On Islam
   • Kirk has asserted that “Islam is not compatible with Western civilisation.”
   • He’s also described Islam as “the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America.”
   • He has claimed Islam “does not believe in freedom of speech, Islam does not believe in freedom of religion…” etc.
2. On LGBTQ+ Issues
   • Kirk has cited Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with a male as with a woman … they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”) and called it “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
   • He has said he “does not agree with that lifestyle” in reference to homosexuality.
   • He has called transgender identities or “transgenderism” lies, argued there are only two genders.
   • In one episode (2023), critics say he used language suggesting violence or coercion toward trans people, with statements like “Someone should’ve just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and ’60s.”
3. “Great Replacement” / Race & Immigration
   • Kirk has used the language of a “great replacement strategy,” saying the left wants increasing migration from the Third World to “replace white rural America.”
   • He has criticized Black Lives Matter by saying BLM stands for “burn, loot and murder,” and said it should be “legal to burn a BLM flag.”
4. On Jewish Philanthropy & Antisemitic Themes
   • He has made statements accusing Jewish philanthropies of “subsidising your own demise by supporting institutions that breed anti-Semites and endorse genocidal killers.”
   • Also claims about Jewish donors controlling universities, Hollywood, nonprofits, etc. Critics view these as echoing antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Pick one of those points and try to argue against it.

 

[rightwinger]

Pick one of those points and try to argue against it.

Demonstrates Kirk preaching of us vs them
We are right, they are wrong
We are good, they are bad
They are out to get us

Hatred and fear mongering

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Demonstrates Kirk preaching of us vs them
We are right, they are wrong
We are good, they are bad
They are out to get us

Hatred and fear mongering

Identifying the problem isn’t hatred. It’s the truth.

I notice you didn’t pick something to debate how he was wrong you just jumped to pointing out the truth is hateful.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It wasnt.

It was, you just dont want to admit it

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I don’t think those that celebrated Charlie’s murder realized what was unleashed. They tried to kill Trump and it resulted in a landslide victory. They killed Charlie and that’s resulting in a world wide celebration of him and his ideas. You can’t kill good ideas by killing one person.

Feel-Good Friday: In the Wake of Charlie Kirk's Murder, Vigils and Vigilance Spread Across the Globe

Vigils and solidarity spread globally in honor of Charlie Kirk following his tragic murder.

redstate.com

 

[pknopp]

It was, you just dont want to admit it

The context of the scripture he used was concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The context of the scripture he used was concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.

Huh? No it wasn't lol, read the scripture. It talks about lying with men being put to death. He referenced Leviticus 18 only. You're arguing about the fact that the verse didbt specifically mention stoning. It didnt mention any method of death.

Stoning would have been an option back then. If you want to argue that he misquoted the stoning part, fine, but he was correct in the premise if the verse.

 

[pknopp]

It was, you just dont want to admit it

The context of the scripture he used was concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.

Huh? No it wasn't lol, read the scripture. It talks about lying with men being put to death. He referenced Leviticus 18 only. You're arguing about the fact that the verse didbt specifically mention stoning. It didnt mention any method of death.

Stoning would have been an option back then. If you want to argue that he misquoted the stoning part, fine, but he was correct in the premise if the verse.

The stoning scripture is concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The context of the scripture he used was concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.


The stoning scripture is concerning adultery.

He couldn't go there.

Lol, youre mistaken. Also, you suggest "he couldn't go there" as if you are saying he was guilty of something? As if he was unfaithful to his wife? Is that what you are suggesting?

Ok, let's go through this:

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination..

What is an abomination:

In the Bible, an "abomination" is a thing, action, or practice that God finds utterly detestable, abhorrent, or morally repugnant.

What is a common punishment for "abominations"?

In the Old Testament, the punishment for certain acts described as an "abomination" was often death, with stoning being the most frequently specified method
. The specific crimes and the rationale behind the punishments are laid out in the Law of Moses, particularly in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

While Leviticus 20:13 explicitly calls for death, it does not specify the method. However, based on the broader context of the Mosaic Law, capital punishment was often carried out by stoning.

• Context of stoning: Stoning was the prescribed penalty for many serious violations of divine law, including idolatry and blasphemy. When the text commanded that "the people of the land shall stone him" for another offense in Leviticus 20, it established stoning as a form of communal execution for offenses that brought moral contamination upon the people.