So what is the response? I feel like these clips are great. But if he makes a great point after, isn’t it setting a trap where you share this and the response is his rebuttal which could be good or bad
His response, and I’m not joking, when all of his arguments against gay marriage were defeated in that debate, was, “well, I still don’t like it.”
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
The extensive attention to curation, editing, and deleting was the whole point of the manufactured reality being pushed.
deleted by creator
Stop stop, he’s already de- oh wait.
Charlie Kirk never liked free speech
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
This whole thing was already played out on the TV series “The West Wing”, and I’m fairly sure that Aaron Sorkin got it from somewhere else.
https://www.tv-quotes.com/shows/the-west-wing/quote_13962.html
Edit: It appears that the original author is Kent Ashcraft:
Source: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/laura.htm#author
What was the rebuttal?
I’m going to stick my neck out and say it was something stupid and ignorant.
Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out
He really gushed on about it
Poured his heart out, he did.
Well, someone did.
Fucking hate shit like this.
BURN!
Well, uh, could I see the reply.
NO!
watched the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZPWbpOnZ-8
Kirk actually has a good point in that those lines are from the old testament, which Christians believe doesn’t apply, and only believe in the new testament. Assuming Kirk is right that it isn’t in the new testament ( the Cambridge speaker doesn’t contest it either, for whatever that is worth). From the the student then pivots to talking about a new testament description along the lines of: Man shall not sleep with man, which he says can be interpreted differently than man and man and could be man and prostitute. Kirk contends that the traditions and interpretations were created during the time that the writings were created, and so there is no loss of translation then, and those understandings have been passed down until down consistently. I will say, i’ve summised this, but it is a lot more of a meandering argument afterwards that is not very interesting to watch.
I feel like the cambridge student shouldn’t have even brought up the lines in videos above because it doesn’t completely apply to Kirk’s religious beliefs. The student studied the bible decently enough to make his point, but it seemed he needed additional context of Kirk’s beliefs to make a strong point against Kirk.
There are no mainstream Christian denominations that don’t believe that the Old Testament is the word of their God, so I’m not sure how the student could have prepared for that particular nonsense juke
those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.
[x] Doubt
So.
Here’s an idea.
A cynical take on Christian nationalism pushing for ONLY the things in the bible that are utterly absurd and contrary to modern society.
Like, making an actual push for ONLY the shit that no one would could possibly take seriously.
I’m no bible scholar but I’m sure there’s a bunch of stuff in the New Testament that we could cherry pick as well.
Sacred tradition? Was Kirk Catholic? And if not why not? Just a grab bag of pick and choose your tradition? Both Protestants and Catholics say that will send you straight to hell. Might as well call yourself a gnostic if you’re going that route (though many of them didn’t have sex hangups).
I too would like to see the rebuttal.
