bc, thanks for your reply. I am sorry to say it depresses me. Your tenor seems to be that Kirk was just a little too ... strident? extreme? Which word is more apt depends on whether he was mainly a provocateur or an ideologue. I think he was both, of course, but YMMV.
The "Prove Me Wrong" schtick was theater, not debate. Whether your position is popular or not, odious or not, sincere or not, the burden of proof in a debate is on you, the person asserting the position. Imagine me asserting that "Santa Claus is real" and demanding to be proved wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for replying. Maybe we do have some common ground in at least one way: canonizing Charlie Kirk is just a little too much.
--TP
2025-09-26 20:27:10
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye: There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
2025-09-18 21:25:47
Was Jesus, the Christ, a nationalist?
The Roman governor of the Roman province of Judea allegedly crucified Jesus of Nazareth for calling himself (or being called by others, perhaps) "King of the Jews". So, yes?
MAGAts are generally ignorant of the content, let alone the history, of their "faith". Or maybe not. Maybe "Christian Nationalist" is not an oxymoron but the modern-day culmination of the Jesus cult. Forget that whatever Jesus of Nazareth thought of "nationalism", American "patriotism" never crossed his mind. Ignore what namby-pamby Christians have to say about welcoming the stranger or caring for the poor, it's what the multimillionaire pastors of megachurches have to say that counts. Or what "martyrs" like Charlie Kirk have to say, for that matter.
The Gospel According to Saint Charles of Kirk got a curious sort of publicity boost by dint of his death. On the one hand, his "martyrdom" is purported to require veneration of his dedication to spreading his gospel. On the other hand, quoting it verbatim is blasphemy, according to the MAGAt Inquisition.
The MAGAts are determined to canonize Saint Charlie, but to forbid quoting him. Come to think of it, they don't like libruls quoting Jesus of Nazareth either.
bc, thanks for your reply. I am sorry to say it depresses me. Your tenor seems to be that Kirk was just a little too ... strident? extreme? Which word is more apt depends on whether he was mainly a provocateur or an ideologue. I think he was both, of course, but YMMV.
The "Prove Me Wrong" schtick was theater, not debate. Whether your position is popular or not, odious or not, sincere or not, the burden of proof in a debate is on you, the person asserting the position. Imagine me asserting that "Santa Claus is real" and demanding to be proved wrong.
Anyway, thanks again for replying. Maybe we do have some common ground in at least one way: canonizing Charlie Kirk is just a little too much.
--TP
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye:
There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
Was Jesus, the Christ, a nationalist?
The Roman governor of the Roman province of Judea allegedly crucified Jesus of Nazareth for calling himself (or being called by others, perhaps) "King of the Jews". So, yes?
MAGAts are generally ignorant of the content, let alone the history, of their "faith". Or maybe not. Maybe "Christian Nationalist" is not an oxymoron but the modern-day culmination of the Jesus cult. Forget that whatever Jesus of Nazareth thought of "nationalism", American "patriotism" never crossed his mind. Ignore what namby-pamby Christians have to say about welcoming the stranger or caring for the poor, it's what the multimillionaire pastors of megachurches have to say that counts. Or what "martyrs" like Charlie Kirk have to say, for that matter.
The Gospel According to Saint Charles of Kirk got a curious sort of publicity boost by dint of his death. On the one hand, his "martyrdom" is purported to require veneration of his dedication to spreading his gospel. On the other hand, quoting it verbatim is blasphemy, according to the MAGAt Inquisition.
The MAGAts are determined to canonize Saint Charlie, but to forbid quoting him. Come to think of it, they don't like libruls quoting Jesus of Nazareth either.
--TP