Subj : Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
To   : Sol Feace
From : jimmylogan
Date : Fri Oct 31 2025 19:24:16

-=> Sol Feace wrote to jimmylogan <=-

 SF>   Re: Re: Charlie Kirk Murdered
 SF>   By: jimmylogan to Sol Feace on Sat Oct 04 2025 04:20 pm

 ji> Can you give an example of something you think was 'violent rhetoric?'



 SF> You want an example of Mr. Kirk's violent rhetoric?

 SF> Black people were better under Jim Crow laws.

The full conversation was that he was pointing out that the
black community is generally worse off today than back then.
He wasn't saying that Jim Crow laws caused them to be
better off, and if you listen he goes on to say that the
loss of the father figure is the reason.

 SF> He would force his own 10 year old daughter to have her rapists baby.

He is against abortion under any circumstance, as am I. You say
'her rapist's baby' but you could also say that the baby is an
innocent person. Is killing an innocent person okay? No. Does
it matter who the father of the innocent person is? No.

Now - you can disagree with that, and that's your right, but
to say it's violent rhetoric to be in support of the life of
innocent people?

 SF> Trans people are like people wearing Black Face.

I haven't heard that one, but I don't disagree. If you are
a male and wear women's clothing, it's like being white
and weating black face makeup. You are pretending to be
something you are not.

How is that violent rhetoric?

 SF> Black women can't be taken seriously since they're thieves.

Haven't heard that one either...

 SF> General anti-vaccination.

Nor this one. Just covid or all of it? And again, how is that
violent?

 SF> Democrat women want to die alone without children.

 SF> Gay people should be stoned.

Also never heard either of these. But I would love to hear
the conversation around the last one. I will look it up, but
I assume it was someone asking about Old Testament law. I've 
heard him say that the law in THAT day called for it. He 
doesn't agree with it now, of course, but doesn't condemn 
people in another time for their laws.

I heard him talking once about something similar and explained
how God was in charge and if God gave a command, the Hebrews 
were expected to follow it. If God the creator of the universe
said to do something, they were expected to do it.

In the New Testemant, we are not 'under the law' as the OT
Jews were, so no we would not do that today at all.

 SF> If you want the actual quotes, they're easily searchable. But these
 SF> were his values and his removal from the world is tragic for his kids.
 SF> Oh well. ---

You say tragic for his kids - but you don't think tragic in general? 




.... Ensign Pillsbury? He's BREAD, Jim
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

.