The straightforward way to read a self-professed Christian—and biblical literalist—characterizing a chapter of the Bible as “affirm[ing] God’s perfect law” is as an endorsement of the laws in that chapter—in this case, condoning the stoning to death of non-celibate gay people.
It doesn't matter what is "straightforward", it matters what is true.
Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death.
That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death.
(And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
"You" should? Who is "you"? Just any guy on the street who decides someone else is wrong?
I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time.
For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like.
The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing.
So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation.
Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.
> I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture
I am afraid that people are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture.
It's an open-ended justification for lots of horrible things.
Everybody deserves the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the overly enthusiastic adherents want to force everybody to live under their interpretation of the texts.
Failing to recognize this is either willful ignorance or duplicity.
We don't actually know what is true. We can only surmise from the content of his speech. Usually, when one is making assertions about one's own beliefs, one intends to be understood and so the most straightforward interpretation is likely to be the most accurate.
Or are you suggest that he was being deliberately obtuse and cryptic?
From the limited amount of business I have done in both countries, in terms of overall freedom I absolutely stan Canada. The difference is they dont advertise it.
No. That happens when people drive too close to each other and brake. Not when you let off the gas slightly to maintain a gap which prevents this exact thing.
The entire reason this happens is because 98% of people are morons who drive up the next guy's ass. If everyone kept a proper distance it wouldn't happen at all.
Slowing down on a busy highway does not reduce turbulence at all, it add chaos and unpredictability to the system. Once car suddenly slowing down to create a buffer zone causes the car behind to slow more and more and can often lead to a stop further back. This has been proven time and again on closed loop systems studying highway traffic flow. They are known as "phantom" traffic jams or shockwave traffic jams. Example, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13402-shockwave-traff...
Yes, and they are caused by sudden decelerations which are the result of many factors, including driving too fast for the conditions, roadway, and traffic, and tailgating.
> Slowing down on a busy highway does not reduce turbulence at all,
The only thing that reduces global turbulence reliably on any roadway is reducing speed. All the simulations and real-world implementations show this. It's unambiguous and uncontroversial, except that it requires drivers to slow down, which is politically untenable in many jurisdictions.
> Slowing down on a busy highway does not reduce turbulence at all, it add chaos and unpredictability to the system. Once car suddenly slowing down...
I agree that slowing down "suddenly" causes turbulence. However, slowing down *gradually* allows you to build up a safety buffer which in turn allows you to avoid slowing down suddenly.
Is the capability of these explosives at a safe level if the liquid precursors are less than 3.5 fl ounces? If they are still capable of blowing a hole in the fuselage with less than 3.5 fl ounces then the limits on fluids are still pointless.
I would say that many of those cheap goods are simply trash that people buy impulsively that either collects in their homes or ends up in landfills in a short period of time. Fast fashion being a well known one, where people buy lots of cheap clothes that are of poor quality and may only be worn once before being thrown out. We don't need these things and the environment doesn't need to be full of landfills of this junk either.
Maybe, but you're basically describing the entire US consumer culture. I'm originally from the UK, but moved to the US decades ago at age 25. The difference between the two cultures in terms of consumer behavior is huge. Companies like Black and Decker (tools) or Kitchen appliance manufactures make different products for these two markets to account for the different tastes - US consumers prefer semi-disposable quality products that are cheap vs UK preferring higher quality at a price. e.g. using metal vs plastic parts, etc.
Teenage fashion (e.g. Shein) is probably a poor example to focus on though since, even disregarding fast fashion, teenage clothes don't have a long usage period - they get outgrown or fashion changes, etc. The price/quality point of Shein is well suited for this.
Sounds like they're using the excuse of the tariffs to overcharge. They would pay the tariffs on their wholesale costs when they import. If they're then passing the same tariff % to the customer at their retail price then they're ripping you off.
