Is this Oxford Union?
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Similarly a lot of the stuff about sodomy was about rape. Regardless I don’t think we should use religious texts as the basis for morals.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Yeah, but no republican wants to hear that their favorite activity is a sin.
Reminds me of a scene from one of my favourite west wing episodes:
Well hell, they don’t like that rule at all
Right? No wonder they all make it about The Gays.
It clearly says it’s fine to sleep with a dude if you are both high.
Is there a specific drug or is it fucker’s choice?
Not asking for myself, just trying to understand.
No specific drug. Caffeine, alcohol, even deep erotic breaths of oxygen will do.
I’d argue it means dopamine, suggesting it’s only permissable with the desire (and consent) of both parties.
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
As the other person said he ends up saying he still doesn’t like it but there is still a challenge. The reason Charlie says it’s reaffirmed in Mathew about the gays is because everything the student brings up is the old testament and Jesus already died to erase those sins. Bringing up Leviticus trying to make a point doesn’t work if you believe in the new testament.
Good thing Charles set the trap himself by saying morality is objective and unchanging. That must either mean God commanded things that were not moral (which is against their worldview), or that burning women, killing disobedient children, taking people as slaves for life, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath are morally permissible.
It’s usually impossible for them to concede God did anything wrong, so they have to justify numerous atrocities.
Not a Christian, but a Muslim once share the argument that God doesn’t make mistakes and corrects, nor he changes his mind. He sets the correct rules for that moment, and any change is because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the right moment to do so. We mere humans can’t understand enough, so that’s the godly way to guide us.
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
So basically, morality is very tricky, so it kind of depends on the situation, so in general try to behave in accordance with X and avoid Y, but there will always be grey areas which must be judged on a case by case basis.
Kind of like how our laws work.
“Everyone! I just heard from sky daddy. He said you should all give me all your money. New moral imperative.”
They rationalize their way out of everything. The bible is infallible except when they don’t like what it says.
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.”
Yea I just watched the whole thing. One of my favorite things I’ve heard recently is people arguing if Charlie was a good debater or not. One person just said “did he ever once change his mind?” There’s one a decade. Charlie was not debating. What pisses me off though is how little material there is for times like this to repost. Sure there’s content but everybody on the left checks out and doesn’t bother to archive anything worthwhile.
Stop stop, he’s already de- oh wait.
Sorry is this how he died… I just got out of my rock…
basically. Someone was showing him that trans people are basically underrepresented in mass shootings, while Kirk et al claim the opposite; and his last words were “counting or not counting gang violence” which is a racist dogwhistle.
And then, (and this is unverified but it appears to be true) a member of a rival white mayonnaise gang capped his ass in broad daylight.
Edit IM LEAVING IT IT’S FUNNIER THAN THE TRUTH AND ALSO A LITTLE TRUE
No, it was actually a piano stealthily hung from a nearby rooftop, which the perpetrator cut down with some comically oversized scissors.
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.
It teaches them the thought stopping cliches and mantras that they can use to “own” libs in drive by Facebook comments.
I think about the classic creationist “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s not intended to be an actual question - you can try to explain that no, we didn’t “come from monkeys,” that we shared a common ancestor, etc… but they don’t care. It’s just supposed to be a quick catch phrase that lets you not think about the question anymore.
That’s the whole point of all of these right wing “debaters.”
“I am convinced by this argument, so if I present the argument to you, I have made a convincing argument. QED.”
But that’s so much fun! Are we talking about videos with hot pink hearts coming out the neck hole or shower arguing I want paying attention
Ooo I should do one with a care bear stare
The extensive attention to curation, editing, and deleting was the whole point of the manufactured reality being pushed.
deleted by creator
Charlie Kirk never liked free speech
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
no one questioned his RIGHT to say anything.
you can’t question someone’s feelings over what he said. so your quote is less then meaningless here
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
I may be the only person alive to find that scene top cringe writing. It’s such a “shower retort” moment and then everybody clapped.
“Dr Laura” (receiver of that original letter) is a fucking shit stain of a human being. One of those right wing women that absolutely hates other women.
She’d tell women and girls calling in that they needed to quit their jobs and dedicate themselves full time to their children, when she herself was happy to ignore raising her children to play pundit. A Phyllis Schafly style gender traitor, someone happy to have a full time job and make lots of money telling women that they weren’t capable or deserving of full human dignity.
Great scene:
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.
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.
he actually didn’t dodge anything, nor did he make a good point.
he stated that morals and right and wrong are immutable/unchanging.
so Charlie is now trapped to make a choice,
A. he’s wrong and morality is dependent on the situation, and so his whole platform regarding how he treats minorities has no justification.
B. he’s wrong and his god purposely demanded atrocities, and was wrong in the past, and is fallible, in which case his whole platform can’t be considered moral based on the teachings of his god.
so his answer is he still didn’t like it, which is him admitting defeat but refusing to decide in which way he believes his god is wrong
Charlie dodged the point. If morals are objective and unchanging, then it must be the case that either:
- all of the laws listed in the OT are at least morally permissible then and now
Or
- God commanded immoral things
It’s not really a good point, it’s just classic cherrypicking. Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” so clearly the old testament law should still apply. Christians are just faced with the reality that they could not live their life in accordance with old testament law in todays age, and have therefore chosen to ignore laws from the old testament.
If they don’t believe in the old testament, why do they want the 10 commandments put up in schools?
No one should debate these trolls, they should be answered with stony silence. It works wonders with my 5 years old.
those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.
[x] Doubt
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
Most Christians believe they live under the New Covenant and not Old Testament law.
You are right that it is widely accepted as the word of God though.
But it was totally fair for god to do that in the past because morals and ethics… have changed… whoops.
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).
Fucking hate shit like this.
BURN!
Well, uh, could I see the reply.
NO!
I too would like to see the rebuttal.
