So yeah, you're a pretty vile person to accept what Israel does to those children every single day but want me to cry to the heavens for Charlie Kirk. I suppose I'll miss out on the 265 posts from the person who calls me a blatant anti-semite without basis.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:30 pm
by GDuck
Duck07 wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:15 pm
So yeah, you're a pretty vile person to accept what Israel does to those children every single day but want me to cry to the heavens for Charlie Kirk. I suppose I'll miss out on the 265 posts from the person who calls me a blatant anti-semite without basis.
Oooh - if you are attacking the number of posts I’ve done, I think I’ve won the argument.
I don’t believe Israel is shooting innocent children in the head. No I don’t and there is no evidence of it so far.
Duck07 wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 8:15 pm
So yeah, you're a pretty vile person to accept what Israel does to those children every single day but want me to cry to the heavens for Charlie Kirk. I suppose I'll miss out on the 265 posts from the person who calls me a blatant anti-semite without basis.
Oooh - if you are attacking the number of posts I’ve done, I think I’ve won the argument.
I don’t believe Israel is shooting innocent children in the head. No I don’t and there is no evidence of it so far.
I already posted one link you didn't like so you ignored it. Here's another if you care to look up the NYTimes article.
Maybe it'll mean more hearing from a friend of his who debunks many of the falsehoods and half-truths stated by the original poster.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2025 10:10 pm
by StevensTechU
greenyellow wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:23 pm
Maybe it'll mean more hearing from a friend of his who debunks many of the falsehoods and half-truths stated by the original poster.
What you posted is called "spin." What I posted aren't falsehoods, they're facts, because they're what he literally said and did. You can try to spin until your heart is content, but I would appreciate if you stopped short of implying I made false statements unless you're going to support that stance. To that end, I look forward to reading your better-documented post about how he didn't say what he said and didn't do what he did.
greenyellow wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:23 pm
Maybe it'll mean more hearing from a friend of his who debunks many of the falsehoods and half-truths stated by the original poster.
What you posted is called "spin." What I posted aren't falsehoods, they're facts, because they're what he literally said and did. You can try to spin until your heart is content, but I would appreciate if you stopped short of implying I made false statements unless you're going to support that stance. To that end, I look forward to reading your better-documented post about how he didn't say what he said and didn't do what he did.
I noticed you haven’t replied to my response to you. I brought the facts - you twisted his words to mean something much different than what he has said (speaking of “spin’). Your statements are factually false. He wasn’t a racist or homophobe and that is backed by facts and those that actually knew him from all walks of life. But your political arrogance is on another level (based on your posts the last few days) and I already know you won’t look at the facts because you have an irrational political agenda to maintain regardless.
greenyellow wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:23 pm
Maybe it'll mean more hearing from a friend of his who debunks many of the falsehoods and half-truths stated by the original poster.
What you posted is called "spin." What I posted aren't falsehoods, they're facts, because they're what he literally said and did. You can try to spin until your heart is content, but I would appreciate if you stopped short of implying I made false statements unless you're going to support that stance. To that end, I look forward to reading your better-documented post about how he didn't say what he said and didn't do what he did.
I think people who've been around him for years would know what was in his heart and mind more than you. But of course that would require you to potentially admit your political assertions might be wrong and open to new ideas/facts.
This is going to go nowhere, isn't it? Please take on what I posted. Tell me where he didn't say and do the things I've shown he said and did, otherwise you're just participating in this large scale image rehabilitation we're all seeing unfold.
The concept of "He's not prejudiced, he just said prejudiced things" is really interesting and I don't have the bandwidth to take it on.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 7:28 am
by Phalanx
What is the point of this thread again, besides the OP trying to hold court and decide who is redeemed and who isn't and giving 07 an opportunity to beat everyone over the head with the Palestinian plight for the umpteenth time as if anyone here had anything to do with Israeli domestic policy? And what are the objections against Charlie, that he lives in a world where people are hired based on the color of their skin and he wonders if those were legit hires? So that makes him a racist? Is that a joke? That is not evidence of racism, it's evidence of brain activity. Affirmative action as a policy doesn't exactly lend itself to respecting people on equal terms. The implication is that you can't make it on equal footing with everyone else, so we need to give you special dispensation for decades upon decades. Do people hired in this fashion end up being sup-par employees sometimes? Of course, what did you think would happen? If I fill an NFL team with 60% white people and 20% latinos, would you bet on that team to perform well? I would not.
If you want to know if Charlie was a racist, maybe it's good to talk to people who knew him. The OP did not know him, he just read an article from someone with a political bias that he is now trying to pawn off as fact.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:33 am
by Duck07
Nothing like the selective morality crowd on here.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:52 am
by GDuck
Duck07 wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 8:33 am
Nothing like the selective morality crowd on here.
Typical - not addressing the shared content. Sad because this is what leads to division and hate. Funny how those that hate most are the one's blaming others for it.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 10:39 am
by duckpoint
StevensTechU wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 4:52 am
This is going to go nowhere, isn't it? Please take on what I posted. Tell me where he didn't say and do the things I've shown he said and did, otherwise you're just participating in this large scale image rehabilitation we're all seeing unfold.
The concept of "He's not prejudiced, he just said prejudiced things" is really interesting and I don't have the bandwidth to take it on.
Your assertion is that the University should not honor Charlie Kirk, a Duck fan, to promote unity because he allegedly "pushed homophobia," "promoted racist beliefs," and "fostered inter-faith distrust and conflict." I argue these claims are, at minimum, misleading. I’ll address each accusation separately, providing full context from your sources to clarify Kirk’s positions.
"We Make Peace With Our Enemies, Not Our Friends."
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions. Kirk’s personal beliefs, rooted in his faith, don’t always translate to his political advocacy. He often distinguishes between his religious convictions and what he believes government should enforce.For example, in a discussion with Amir Odom (around 39:35 in this YouTube video),
Kirk clearly separates his faith-based views from his political stance, emphasizing this distinction.
Did Charlie Kirk "push homophobia to his listeners"? Source: Media Matters
The term "homophobia" is often used to shame or silence those with differing views on sexuality. A more neutral framing would be whether Kirk "pushed views antithetical to the gay community." You claim Kirk stated, "monogamous heterosexual marriage should be a prerequisite to adoption," and that this implies "gay people should have fewer rights than straight people."Here’s the full context from the cited video clip, where Kirk responds to a listener’s question:
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): One of our listeners says, "Charlie, I don’t like this segment. I think same-sex couples should be able to adopt the same way heterosexual couples can. It’s better for children to have gay parents than no parents at all."
Do you guys agree? I’m curious where our audience stands on this.
...
I think that monogamous heterosexual marriage should be a prerequisite to adoption. I believe that is the ideal environment for a child. It’s not a popular opinion—you’re up against powerful forces to say that out loud. If you disagree, I’d love to hear from you.
The broader discussion, briefly referenced at the clip’s end, touched on a specific case involving pedophiles and young boys, but Kirk doesn’t tie this to his stance on adoption. His position appears rooted in his religious belief about the ideal family structure, not in advocating for policy changes or denying rights to gay individuals. No evidence in the clip suggests he’s pushing for legal restrictions on gay adoption.
For further context, see this 5-minute YouTube video, where Kirk engages with someone whose views align more with your accusations, demonstrating a nuanced approach.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:00 am
by Duck07
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:18 am
by StevensTechU
Someone actually wants to take on the content, not just shoot the messenger or be upset with the conclusions. At a minimum, duckpoint, I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion and not just talk past one another.
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions.
There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive. Moreover, there are actually many that are agents of connecting people of different sexual orientations, races, and faiths. Trying to pin a criticism of Charlie Kirk to being a criticism of an entire religion is a very right-wing-playbook thing to do, but no thanks. You can be Christian and choose to be none of those things, and it saddens me if you feel differently. Among the many reasons it is not sufficient to say "well these views are rooted in his religion, so they're OK" is because the reality is that every religion feels that way. Many Christians don't see prejudice (be it misogyny, ableism, homophobia, etc.) in those that practice their religion but they easily identify it in Islam. The same can be said of Muslims seeing only what they want to see in their and other religions. Religious views have been used to burn suspected witches, enslave humans, go to war, etc. The Ku Klux Klan was a religious organization. It's not sufficient to say a view or behavior is OK because that's what their religion says is fine.
He often distinguishes between his religious convictions and what he believes government should enforce.
We're not debating Charlie Kirk the politician. We're debating whether Charlie Kirk is worthy of being honored by a public university, to which I've said no because he made a living by being divisive, creating "them" for his audiences to distrust or even be fearful of. Whether his divisive views were turned into law or not is irrelevant, it's whether we want to celebrate a person who had views incompatible with the concept of unity.
The term "homophobia" is often used to shame or silence those with differing views on sexuality. A more neutral framing would be whether Kirk "pushed views antithetical to the gay community."
A common practice in politics is to make a label untenable and to push for something softer and more palatable for their side. The content of Charlie Kirk's words are that he unfoundedly felt gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Whether it's intentional or not, you seem to ignore that he brings this up during a discussion in which he's talking about a situation in which a gay couple molested two adopted kids. He is very literally attempting to cause "fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men" - the definition of homophobia; it's the point of bringing up this news story and bringing up this view in the segment. If Charlie didn't want to attend a gay wedding that he was invited to because of his personal views, that would be "views antithetical to the gay community." But that's not what's happening - he is instead using a platform in which he reaches millions of people to push a story that aligns with his views to get other people to feel similarly. The statement that "Kirk doesn't tie this to his stance on adoption" as he talks about both is the same segment is wrong, nothing more.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 12:47 pm
by duckpoint
StevensTechU wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:18 am
Someone actually wants to take on the content, not just shoot the messenger or be upset with the conclusions. At a minimum, duckpoint, I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion and not just talk past one another.
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions.
There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive. Moreover, there are actually many that are agents of connecting people of different sexual orientations, races, and faiths. Trying to pin a criticism of Charlie Kirk to being a criticism of an entire religion is a very right-wing-playbook thing to do, but no thanks. You can be Christian and choose to be none of those things, and it saddens me if you feel differently. Among the many reasons it is not sufficient to say "well these views are rooted in his religion, so they're OK" is because the reality is that every religion feels that way. Many Christians don't see prejudice (be it misogyny, ableism, homophobia, etc.) in those that practice their religion but they easily identify it in Islam. The same can be said of Muslims seeing only what they want to see in their and other religions. Religious views have been used to burn suspected witches, enslave humans, go to war, etc. The Ku Klux Klan was a religious organization. It's not sufficient to say a view or behavior is OK because that's what their religion says is fine.
He often distinguishes between his religious convictions and what he believes government should enforce.
We're not debating Charlie Kirk the politician. We're debating whether Charlie Kirk is worthy of being honored by a public university, to which I've said no because he made a living by being divisive, creating "them" for his audiences to distrust or even be fearful of. Whether his divisive views were turned into law or not is irrelevant, it's whether we want to celebrate a person who had views incompatible with the concept of unity.
The term "homophobia" is often used to shame or silence those with differing views on sexuality. A more neutral framing would be whether Kirk "pushed views antithetical to the gay community."
A common practice in politics is to make a label untenable and to push for something softer and more palatable for their side. The content of Charlie Kirk's words are that he unfoundedly felt gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Whether it's intentional or not, you seem to ignore that he brings this up during a discussion in which he's talking about a situation in which a gay couple molested two adopted kids. He is very literally attempting to cause "fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men" - the definition of homophobia; it's the point of bringing up this news story and bringing up this view in the segment. If Charlie didn't want to attend a gay wedding that he was invited to because of his personal views, that would be "views antithetical to the gay community." But that's not what's happening - he is instead using a platform in which he reaches millions of people to push a story that aligns with his views to get other people to feel similarly. The statement that "Kirk doesn't tie this to his stance on adoption" as he talks about both is the same segment is wrong, nothing more.
Like I said, if you can't separate his religious views on the things you find offensive, then there is no open discussion to be had. Indeed there are degrees in belief among Christians, Charlie is just more devout and true to the scripture than many.
Should I conclude that according to you that all Christians that adopt a moral beliefs directly scripture are racist & anti-gay? If we set aside the millions of less devout, casual (morally flexible) Christians, that still leaves many millions of Christians as the source of division in this country. I supposed we could extend that to many corners of the world
with exception of Gaza of course.
Summary:
Politics not the problem.
Casual Christians are not the problem.
Devout Christians are the problem!