The quote about the second amendment seems consistent with promoting life, because the second amendment helps protect all the others. It would be fair to argue that this requires nuance, because if someone commits murder with a gun, they are treading on someone else's rights. On the other hand, if the government becomes corrupt and manages to establish some dictatorship, the government could decide to kill tens of millions of people which we have seen in history. Suddenly with that potentiality, taking away everyone's guns isn't promoting life anymore.
There have been some very unfortunate outcomes from governments taking guns away from the people. It would be wise to take this seriously and with an open mind if you are a person of character. Examples: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda. Obviously, the founders were drawing on examples that long predated these, so this is not a new phenomena and it repeats through history.
People have made arguments about guns being useless against the all powerful government hardware, but if the armed population greatly outnumbers the government they can use many different tactics to impose inefficiencies on them.
> I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards.
Only watched a few of his things, but I did see him offer multiple times for people to use their phones, ask ChatGPT, look things up. Someone who asks a question doesn't have to be ready for any question the way Charlie did, they only had to be ready for the questions related to the topic they were going to ask about. They had their own time to prepare either long before the event or while standing in line.
He also went to Cambridge Union, where people were more practiced at debate and well-read.
> Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump.
Those sound like they need context to better understand, if there is anything to them. If you have an original source, I would look into it.
> Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil.
This also seems to lack a lot of context. I don't know if he's sexist or racist, only that I haven't seen anything which should obviously be labeled that. I have seen things which overly sensitive people might consider as sexist or racist, but with objectivity, they didn't appear that way to me. As for the empathy thing, I've seen that claim plastered over the internet, but when I looked it up I think he just said he preferred the word sympathy rather than empathy which makes it clear people are taking it out of context very disingenuously.
He does have some unpopular opinions, so there are people motivated to spread lies to push people away so they get turned off by all the claims about him such that they never even attempt to look at what he actually said or that when they DO hear what he said they are primed to interpret it the way they were told to interpret it. I disagree with him about some things, but the disinformation campaigns against him are atrocious all the same and are likely what got him killed.
> I fundamentally disagree with just about everything you've said
Well, it's good to disagree. I mean, if you're wrong, you could get millions and millions killed. Hopefully you would agree that if there was a real risk of that, other people would contest you logically and push back. Presumably you are a person who would care about that.
> “I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified,” - Charlie Kirk
That wasn't racism, that was about the idea of pilots being hired under a system where there's a sort of race quota. He was talking about a system that is already race oriented, which he rejects. He was operating under the understanding that if there is a race quota, then merit based selection (which everyone who ever flies should want their pilot to be there on merits) might fall to the side.
I think people understand now that the pilots and air traffic controllers still have to pass rigorous tests and standards, but any sort of race based selection is bound to make some people feel uneasy.
When Affirmative Action was put in place, it was done with the understanding that it was double-sided, in that it could make people selected for their race feel less worthy and people of that race who got there fully on merits may feel like they're treated as if they didn't earn it when they did. It was never meant to last forever, because it's good for people of any race to feel happy and proud of their achievements and not like they were handed to them. To feel like they deserve the respect they get.
That issue stemmed from the relative lack of minority parents who had professional careers, which means they were less likely to pass on that inspiration and knowledge to their kids which could also make their kids less likely to pursue those kinds of things. By trying to smooth the pathway to certain education or career paths, it was about reducing the burden and difficulty of taking those life paths for people who weren't as integrated into them yet.
That makes a lot of sense to me and the choices were complicated, but it seems like people made the right choices so long as they're temporary.
The issue is more complicated in industries or careers that heavily involve public safety or national security. While it is possible to maintain standards and demand that everyone of any race rise up to those standards, if schooling opportunities weren't as good for some, there have been real risks of people lowering standards to meet quotas in various cases. That's a legitimate concern. So long as that doesn't happen in public safety or anything critical, it's probably fine.
After a generation or two it's less of a problem, especially with the internet, because there are so many ways and opportunities to learn now that a lot more people can get an early start on their learning and foster their talent so by the time they're moving into a career they don't have to grow into it as much.
There have been some very unfortunate outcomes from governments taking guns away from the people. It would be wise to take this seriously and with an open mind if you are a person of character. Examples: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda. Obviously, the founders were drawing on examples that long predated these, so this is not a new phenomena and it repeats through history.
People have made arguments about guns being useless against the all powerful government hardware, but if the armed population greatly outnumbers the government they can use many different tactics to impose inefficiencies on them.
> I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards.
Only watched a few of his things, but I did see him offer multiple times for people to use their phones, ask ChatGPT, look things up. Someone who asks a question doesn't have to be ready for any question the way Charlie did, they only had to be ready for the questions related to the topic they were going to ask about. They had their own time to prepare either long before the event or while standing in line.
He also went to Cambridge Union, where people were more practiced at debate and well-read.
> Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump.
Those sound like they need context to better understand, if there is anything to them. If you have an original source, I would look into it.
> Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil.
This also seems to lack a lot of context. I don't know if he's sexist or racist, only that I haven't seen anything which should obviously be labeled that. I have seen things which overly sensitive people might consider as sexist or racist, but with objectivity, they didn't appear that way to me. As for the empathy thing, I've seen that claim plastered over the internet, but when I looked it up I think he just said he preferred the word sympathy rather than empathy which makes it clear people are taking it out of context very disingenuously.
He does have some unpopular opinions, so there are people motivated to spread lies to push people away so they get turned off by all the claims about him such that they never even attempt to look at what he actually said or that when they DO hear what he said they are primed to interpret it the way they were told to interpret it. I disagree with him about some things, but the disinformation campaigns against him are atrocious all the same and are likely what got him killed.