more Charlie stuff,,,,

When faith is questioned, Faith is strengthened.

Or obliterated.

That is what the left is in fear of.  I personally believe that deep, DEEP down inside, the left knows that their ‘world’ is based on fallacy and whimsy.  And those don’t hold up when exposed to the voices of reason and logic.  

That was what Charlie Kirk brought to the table.    Admittedly, watching some of his videos, he also fell prey to the Faith Fallacy: His ‘pillars’ that were based on fallacy were spiritual, not moral, so he was able to withstand the storms he found himself in.   This one being a great example.*

Here, I have to tell you, I agree with BOTH of these gents.   I will also say that the body language of the younger debator SCREAMED arrogance while Charlies was that of the warrior; stolidly awaiting the firestorm forthcoming.   The younger debator also did a lot of the “Talk fast and loud” tactic, and I find that annoying as fuck.

But I agree with both

and disagree with both.   

thats the point of OPEN DEBATE, air the sides, let audience make the connections as they will, and then, maybe someone can come in and ‘do it again’ and the whole evolves

or maybe I should say “DISTILLS”,,,    Thats what we do when we distill a product, be it alcohol, water or whatever: we refine it to a purer substance.  Preferably one that is healthy and sane.   That should be the goal in debates, not ‘winning’. (and yes, I know we distill poisons as well,,, and that could be the end result of debates as well, seeing how many a greek debate ended up in war sanctions back 3000 years ago.)

I won’t go into the agree/disagree parts here (In a way, I have already in my seperate page: if you have dived into that, I am sure you can spot the areas where I am like “Nope, Don’t agree!”)

Where I will say I agree, and I noticed that the Arrogant YOut! kept skipping around it,  was the  Man/Woman aspects that are traditionally THE NORM.    There was another video where this same subject was handled a little differently by Charlie, but I haven’t a clue if that was before or after this one.   I would say ‘after’ as he seemed to be more solidly planted in his convictions in the other video.

I DO agree with that point.   I have no issues if someone(s) want to live in a homogenous gender relationship.   Thats the business of two consenting adults, but I DO BELIEVE, that MARRIAGE is a contract and that Contract signals the intent of PROGENY, and any homogenous relationship is not going to be able to reproduce.  Sure, they can adopt or something, but thats not reproduction: someone else did the hard work there.  The Marriage contract should not be sullied by whimsical relationships, or short term business gain: it SHOULD be a lifelong commitment with the intent of furthering the species and your particular set of genetic contributions to the same.

Live

Learn

Laugh

LOVE

LOAD

*I call FAITH a fallacy for the simple fact it can not be PROVEN/DISPROVEN.    A good Charletan can appear fully faith drivin’ and not have a shred of belief.    I don’t believe that to be the case in Charlie: his faith was ‘rock solid’ whether it could be proven or not.   I noted that the kid tried on a couple of occasions to drive a wedge in that faith and failed completely each time.

So, if you took my calling faith a fallacy, please do not be offended, its merely a definition in this case.   You can’t prove/disprove it, so technically, should not be used in debate, but Charlie LIVED his faith: it couldn’t be put aside that easily.