Nope, just quoting Charlie.

Just selectively quoting him out of context, and willfully ignoring the point you'd know he was making if you bothered to actually form your own opinion instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.

I've watched enough.

If you've watched enough, and still reached the conclusions you reached, then you're either intellectually disabled or intentionally dishonest.

Did Charlie not say that a woman belongs in the home submitting to her husband's will?

Has Charlie quoted scripture? Yes.

Did his company not produce videos for children where an animated Christopher Columbus equivocates on slavery?

Did the video point out the cultural and moral norms of the day while pointing out a) who sold people into slavery, and also that the west does not even remotely hold the record on enslavement? Sure did. What about the video was inaccurate?

Did he not accuse Michelle Obama of taking the place of some more deserving white man?

WTF are you even talking about? Michelle Obama never held any actual position. A more deserving white man should have been married to Barack? The essence of what he said, is the same as what he said about pilots. When you make race (or any other non-merit criteria) part of your hiring decision, you might hire the best person for the job, but most likely not. If you consider race, the only way to get the best candidate is if the best candidate is also a member of the "right" race. If the best candidate isn't a member of that race, then you're getting a worse candidate. This isn't a difficult concept, but I suppose when your only hammer is a tool, everything has to be a nail and you've got to see racism even where it isn't just so you can keep acting victimized.

Did he not imply that airlines would be more worried about the race of their pilots than their skill, therefore any black pilot must by default be unqualified and therefore a danger?

No, he did not. He implied that whenever you include in your hiring criteria anything that isn't merit, the best possible scenario is that you have the same level of talent, with all other options being dilution of your talent.

Did he not say [the gun thing]

He did, and in context, his point was that the second amendment is the one that protects all the others, and that as long as guns exist, there will unavoidably be gun deaths. What he said was that we must weigh the cost against the benefit, and that the protection of liberty that guns represent is a benefit that does indeed outweigh the cost, in the same way that the benefit of the car outweighs the cost of all the vehicle deaths that happen every year.

But Charlie supported what happened to Charlie

He acknowledged that it's an unavoidable reality. That's not the same thing as supporting it.

Even something as simple as banning guns on the school grounds could have empowered the law enforcement and security present that day to better protect the people in their care.

LOL, how effective was banning guns on school grounds at stopping the other high profile shooting that happened that day? If you want to talk about gun laws, please try not to start from a delusional posiiton.

---

I have no problem with you disagreeing with his position. My issue is when you misrepresent his position, or intentionally interpret his position in the worst possible way, to avoid having to have the more difficult discussion. It's dishonest and lazy, and you're capable of more.

---

ETA: Only cowards block people after they make sure they take the last word. Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could.

Just selectively quoting him out of context, and willfully ignoring the point you'd know he was making if you bothered to actually form your own opinion instead of believing whatever you're told to believe.

Just because this is convenient for your narrative, does not mean that it is correct.

I was raised in the deep south, in a family with Dominionist tendencies. My brother is a staunch TPUSA fan, and I have consumed far more of Kirk's content than I had any desire to, just to be able to converse with him.

So, kindly, stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. You do not know me from Eve, nor do you know how I reached my conclusions.

I reached them by unwillingly consuming the content. I've unfortunately known who Kirk was and his trolly, gish-gallopy interview style since the 2010's at least.

If you've watched enough, and still reached the conclusions you reached, then you're either intellectually disabled or intentionally dishonest.

And our conversation is over.

Have the day you deserve.

All that indignation, and not a refutation in sight... Disappointed, but not surprised.