> Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing”
A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people".
I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.
Calling the rule in the bible that calls for the stoning of gay people, and I quote, from the video: “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” is absolutely advocating for the stoning of gay people. You are the one extending grace to defend a monster just because he is dead. https://fair.org/home/action-alert-snopes-thinks-kirk-was-ki...
I also think you seem to be unfamiliar with his work, and are giving him the benefit of the doubt in this isolated example you’ve familiarized yourself with. Please. Familiarize yourself with more. You’ll uncover a pattern of unserious and hateful nonsense.
Since this has devolved into accusations that I’m lying, being slimy, and calling my very-obviously-not baseless claims “baseless smears”, I think it’s time I pull the plug on this little exchange. Take care.
> I’m lying, being slimy, and [...] I think it’s time I pull the plug on this little exchange. Take care.
Well I'm glad we're ending this on common ground, but I note that you can make anyone say nearly anything when you start taking literal quotes at the start and end of their speech and ignore what they're actually saying. Phrases are only meaningful quotes when taken in context.
You claimed Kirk advocated stoning gays. You were (are) lying, he didn't. You're best follow up is quoting him "literally" saying something different, out of context and doubling down despite the fact you've been called out. Which is a pretty sure tell that you know you aren't actually representing what he meant. Particularly since the clip is long enough to make it clear that he wasn't advocating stoning anyone. He was making a logical point.
The dude just got assassinated. Don't baselessly smear the man while the dust is settling.
A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people".
I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.