> “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 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

shibapuppie 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm trans. Why do I need to tolerate someone who not only hates me, but would revel in watching me die?

▲

bigbadfeline a day ago | parent [-]

> 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 a day ago | parent [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

> 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 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not reading that. Thanks, but you're wasting your time. Go troll somewhere else.

▲

estimator7292 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.

▲

bigbadfeline a day ago | parent [-]

> "You deserve to die" is not a tolerable opinion.

Go on, word it in the positive. What does a person expressing such an opinion deserve?

	▲	shibapuppie a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, I see. You're just a troll.

▲

paxcoder 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

lordloki 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

rexpop 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

He's saying that instead of loving gays as your neighbour you should kill them

▲

ButlerianJihad 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

"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.

	▲	pstuart a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture I am afraid that people are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture. It's an open-ended justification for lots of horrible things. Everybody deserves the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the overly enthusiastic adherents want to force everybody to live under their interpretation of the texts. Failing to recognize this is either willful ignorance or duplicity.
	▲	momdad420 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

bigmealbigmeal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

rexpop 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We don't actually know what is true. We can only surmise from the content of his speech. Usually, when one is making assertions about one's own beliefs, one intends to be understood and so the most straightforward interpretation is likely to be the most accurate.

Or are you suggest that he was being deliberately obtuse and cryptic?