Charlie Kirk and Buck Angel Debate – people can disagree and its ok
- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by
.
Serious questionb: Why do conservatives not understand the difference between sex and gender?
An interesting point in the debate is when they go back and forth about the origin of morality. Charlie Kirk says there is an objective, absolute morality (conveniently his own, imagine that), and Buck Angel says all morality is relative. They bring up child sacrifices by Goths and Aztects. Buck tries to defend the indefensible as saying “that was their morality and their morality was just the same as yours, written by men, right or wrong all relative to viewpoint.”. Charlie Kirk just says it’s wrong, but can’t explain why.
This fallacy on both sides is why I consider Ayn Rand the greatest philosopher of all times. While she stole most of her ideas from Nietzsche, she was the first and only one who instead of just inventing the ten thousandth morality system instead invented a method why which to determine and define objective morality.
This method shows that both Kirk’s authoritarian / traditionalist morality and Angel’s moral relativism are equally false.
It’s not that their morals are bad. Both are obviously moral people. Their methods to reach their morals are bad.What follows is simply my opinion. I am not at all saying that others are not entitled to think something different.
While I may not agree with Kirk on everything I sure as heck would not call him or his morality authoritarian. I am not sure why you would say that except just to reject the concept of God.
Morality is either a standard for human behavior or it is not. The point at which it turns relative or subjective it ceases to exist as a standard. If we agree it has to be an unwavering agreed upon standard then we get to the point of who decides what it is. I believe in God’s morality and that he is the root of it. This is what the morality of this country is primarily based on to this point.
===
Sex and Gender are the same. Is it a social construct? Yes. But only because it is a biological one first. For the super tiny minority that feel different then their actual sex that is a diagnosable condition. Funny how that was a fairly straightforward thing until the left/Democrats needed a wedge issue.
Furthermore, it is my understanding all the current “gender” nonsense was largely born of the work by Kinsey and Money. Money is the one who performed an “experiment” on a twin where by he swapped the gender of a 7 month old. Later on in life this poor man killed himself.
My point is, screwing around with sex/gender on folks for political gain based on insane ideas is akin to lighting them on fire to warm your hands. And doing this to children is absolutely diabolical and evil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
