₦airaland Forum

tctrills:
You are the one who began the emotional blackmail, so dont pretend to be insulted. I know you too well; you are a pro in hypocrisy. I gave you a response, and you began to cry that I should be ashamed of myself for not condemning Charlie. Oga, this doesn't work on me, you of all people should know that by now.
I dont shame you for your views, no matter how foolish they are, so do not try it with me.

You dont deserve to exist.

basilico:
You have concluded that Kirk said that life was better off for black people in ALL metrics in the 1940s.

You are 100% wrong ,that's not what he meant.

It doesnt have to be saying in all metrics. He did say better, simpliciter though. That does not have to be all metrics.
In context, he was saying that they behaved better when given less rights. And therefore suggesting that they deserve less rights.

GracieX3:
Don't mind the Oreos (term for self hating blacks who are white on the inside).

There was generally less burglaries and murders for everyone in the USA at the time. Nothing special for black people. They are twisting facts to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

But of course!

They lack any empathy

And basic self respect.

bemeruca:
You are still isolating one phrase from the subject being discussed.

Kirk did not start with oh, Black people were better off in the 1940s as a general statement.

He started with specific claims: less murder, less break-ins, etc. Then he said the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

In context, the word better refers to the data points he just mentioned. That is not an amendment; that is basic reading comprehension. Don't let LordReed give you that infection.

If I say: In the 1980s, Port Harcourt had less robbery, less murder, less drug abuse the city was better then, you do not automatically assume i mean every single thing about life was better. You understand I meant better on the issue being discussed.

If you truly want full context you should also factor in the fact that he said less murder and less break ins "before they had equal rights. Therefore in context, he was tying "better behavior" to having less rights.

When asked if he is saying suppression is good for them, he says no, its evil, but goes ahead to affirm that they were better under that suppression.

What do you think he was driving at?

Any half wit can see what he was saying. Especially given that this is the same man who argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Thats real context for u.

GracieX3:
Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Thank you for this. But bemeruca and tctrills say its cool since they committed less crimes. Oh, if your hands are tied of course you will do less overall including less crimes, for sure.

I want to imagine these people have no idea of the horrible things black people faced during that time. But they do. They just are too deeply enslaved to care.

These people are repulsive and do not deserve to exist. They lack any humanity whatsoever.

bemeruca:
No, I am not amending anything. I am providing the context.

The question being discussed was crime and behaviour.

Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

You are deliberately changing the meaning of better here.

If I say, Nigeria’s railway system was better in the 1960s, nobody serious thinks I mean Nigerians were better off under colonialism. It means that specific thing being discussed was better.

Kirk even immediately said the era was bad and evil. So how can you honestly claim he meant Black people were better off under that evil system?

The fair criticism is: “Kirk should have phrased it more carefully.” Fine like is said before, provocative words != racism

The dishonest criticism is: “Kirk said Black people were better off oppressed.” He did not. He said some data points were better in that era, while also calling the era evil.

Oga move on from this agend.

You did amend what he said. You in fact comepletely changed it. Adding the words "some" and maybe" are a huge change.

What he said -

"they were better in the 40s"

What you said he said -

" Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true "

These are completely different and anyone can see the massive difference.

Besides, you are not a baby - do I have to explain to you that when he says people were better behaved when they had less rights, he is drawing a link between having less rights and better behavior?

tctrills have explained to you and you are still burying your head in the sand.

I have no respect for his intellect, self respect, or moral compass.

basilico:
Too bad he was shot before he could explain that ?
Good for you because you have no further clarification from him , therefore he is racist.
I find this in bad taste, why bring up this particular one.
Charlie used to make his case then invite questions no matter how unpalatable.

He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

NerdCat:
Have you clocked yet, by the way, that the assertion "your understanding is too finite to indict God" renders it equally too finite to recognise, trust, or worship Him? That blade, my friend, is double-edged - thoroughly and symmetrically so.



Nobody claimed mercy was God's sole attribute. My dissatisfaction has hardly anything to do with the subject. The problem here is the logical structure of omnipotence colliding with observable reality, which no inventory of additional divine attributes actually resolves. Holiness doesn't explain tumours in children. Justice, interestingly, makes the problem worse, because justice applied to a child who has committed nothing arguably demands intervention. As for my righteousness being irrelevant - that's correct, and also entirely beside the point. My argument stands or falls on its own merits, independent of my moral CV. Attacking my standing rather than my logic is the oldest deflection in the catalogue.



The same thing that makes you able to measure proportionality when you declare the plan ultimately just and good: basic moral reasoning applied to observable evidence. You can't simultaneously claim proportionality is assessable when it favours your theology and completely inaccessible when it inconveniently doesn't.



If all suffering is preventable under omnipotence, the moral responsibility calculus becomes total, not partial, so congratulations on that own goal. The fact that I keep bringing up brain tumours in children is me giving you a concrete, causally clean case. I focus there precisely because it resists your "human actions" deflection most ruthlessly. Scope it however broadly you like, the problem scales with you.

You deserve a fine wine. Not just for clarity of thought, but elegance of words.

bemeruca:
Nobody here said Black people were better off under Jim Crow.

Argue with Kirk, not me -

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”

Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

You are amending what he said. As a loyal follower, you are refining it for him. In red above are his words. He clearly said blacks were better off in the 40s, word for word, even in his clarification.

AdolfHitlerxXx:
If you try all these techniques with an EkukeBingo...without feeding it


Just kidding. Dogs are so intelligent. They have personalities like humans; some introverts and some extroverts.

Alsatians/ German Shepherds are my favorite breed. Super intelligent and I stay away from Dobermans, Mastiffs and Rottweilers. Too aggressive.

German Shepherds can be obsessively possessive though.

bemeruca:
When Charlie called that era and Jim Crow evil in your own post, was it enough for you to know that he does not support it?

Why do you want to label everything racist instead of understanding the arguments or point?

Where did he say that era was good for them or that they were better with Jim Crow?

The bold question. Here is your answer -

-------------
KIRK – “When blacks in America did not have the same rights, they have today, they were less murderous, there were less break-ins – why is that?”
Questioner – “Are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation?”
KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”

------------
The bold in the red above answers you verbatim.

tctrills:
Stop being foolish. I said the black community was more sane.

And you know what psychological group trauma the segregation and discrimination was inflicting?
Its truly a shame that people like you exist.

tctrills:
Lol
When you can't face the truth, you pretend to be sickened. If you are not capable of handling the facts, you should have learnt not to mention me because you know I will always give you truth bombs.
You can play to the emotions of your fellow race police with words like revolting, pathetic, and sickening, but we know it's just a show. You guys are just show guys, pretending to know what's best and giving you useless morals that haven't helped anyone, to the rest of us.
Please do not ever mention me unless you have the capacity to engage.

No brains.

tctrills:
I am sure that if you decide to be honest and present the entire transcript, it will show that Charlie Kirk was not suggesting a return to subjugation but a return to a more sane black society as it was before.

Things were "more sane" for blacks during segregation?

You should be ashamed of the things you utter.

bayelsaowei:
They’ll find an explanation.

Give them some time..

Can you see the revolting thing just written by Tctrills above?

These people are pathetic and sickening.

I feel like throwing up.

tctrills:
My brother, you have made yourself the race police but the truth is that you are actually more racist than everyone you call out.
You spend your time researching who is racist and who isn't when you should be working on yourself.
The only one with s problem is you but you will never realise it.

For you to claim that Charlie Kirk statement is racist shows that you are just a racist and a fault finder.

Now this is the prove. If I say that under British colonial rule, Nigeria was a far safer and better society, does that make me a racist?

What is your definition of racism?

He said that blacks were better in the 40s. Your statement not only shows that you are permanently caged in your mentality, but more importantly, you definitely have no idea what it was like for colored people in America prior to the Civil Rights Movement and Act.

It also shows your general ignorance because the sort of life suffered by black people of that era is common global knowledge. And yet you seem either ignorant of it or indifferent to it. Enjoy.

People like you are a danger to the world.

I was watching a Youtube show on Charlie Kirk / Erika Kirk. Came across some of his utterances again.

I had to sit back and wonder, befuddled, how people argue that this man was not racist.

His words - verbatim -

KIRK – “When blacks in America did not have the same rights they have today, they were less murderous, there were less break-ins – why is that?”

QUESTIONER – “Are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation?”

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”


How do the likes of raumdeuter, bemeruca, tctrills, TV01, basilico and company wish to spin this.

cc: Ishilove (I copy you because you once claimed to me he was not racist I believe), Ijebos, cococandy

PS: This specific exchange took place during a live event at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah, on September 10, 2025, just before he was shot.

GloriousGbola:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swIaUBTXt8c?si=Z9N0pW-BgKhjHJ83

Double the hassan

This guy is just an all time genius and hero. It's hard to find anyone who can even remotely compare to him. In a class of his own.

TV01:
Why are you being disingenuous? Admit you misread and\or misapplied the verses from Romans. I maintain, you are hellbent on insisting on your reading of the biblical text to justify the hatred you have for Christianity. Your free choice.


TV

The Romans verse. I can see why you may have an argument there, but I don't think it succeeds. The reason is this. The argument you can have is this: when it says "For those he foreknew" it can be argued that being omniscient, God already knew ahead the nature, character and choices of certain people, and thus the verse is only saying that having known their choices, he also predestined salvation for such people.

The reason I say it doesn't succeed for me is that once an omniscient God foreknows something about your future choices, then you are locked into those choices, otherwise that God is not omniscient. So in other words if you and I are striving Christians, if God knows that one thousand years from now, you will choose to love him and I will choose to hate him, there is absolutely nothing either of us can do in the intervening time to make a different choice. This is a logical conundrum well discussed in theology about omniscience and free will.

There you go. I have addressed it.

Now, let us say for the sake of argument that your interpretation is right without any controversy. It still does nothing to take away the stark clarity of the other verses which are completely unambiguous.

Basilico

Richtaiwo:
Because your inconsequential hate for Reno has clearly overpowered your common sense, you now find it reasonable to write utterly pointless letters to foreign governments, urging them not to accept him as an ambassador. A man formally nominated by the President to represent both his office and the nation in that country.

What makes the whole performance even more ridiculous is the warped logic behind it. You despise the President, you constantly sneer at Nigeria, yet somehow imagine you should have a decisive voice in who represents the country abroad. It is the kind of contradiction that only makes sense in the minds of foolish people who mistake noise for relevance.

Who are you talking to?

Xxxx

TV01:
You are blinded by your own insistence on projecting your desired reading and reject unconsidered any other. I can't help that.


Pray tell, how does a man who does not have free will plan anything? If Israel and Iran go to war, whatever their plans, what will happen will fit God's unfolding purpose - IFF it touches on it.

What it shows is that you can imagine and plan all you want, but the only thing that happens at the end of the day in any instance is what the Lord wills. This absolves man of any guilt. It is completely in tandem with the Islamic view that all that happens is the will of God.

Explain away these verses -

Ephesians 1:11: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."

​Isaiah 46:10: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'"

I choose to eat healthily - am I predestined not to eat junk food. Are thieves predestined to steal? So yu rclaim is that God predestines people to sin, then punishes them for it?

Your scripture says so, not me.

And there are instances of it - for example, where he instigated David to conduct a census and then killed 70, 000 Israelites for the conduct of the census. How absurd is that?

Only God is perfect. Making man, even in God's image, does not make man God The creation was perfectly fit for purpose at the point of creation.

TV

Then it must be presumed that what happened (the fall of man) was designed by the designer - God.

triplechoice:
You are redefining agnosticism to avoid the contradiction. You have in the past argued passionately for the soul or spirit, and that's a belief, not agnostic uncertainty.

Saying you "know little to nothing" while holding a strong positive belief about the soul or creator doesn't make you agnostic , it makes you inconsistent.

Perhaps I am inconsistent. Perhaps that inconsistency is a sign of not really knowing anything.

But to be honest, I am simply generally agnostic, not absolutely. In other words, I will not say there isn't anything at all that I claim to know for sure.

At the minimum, I know I exist. Corgito ergo sum.

TV01:
In your eyes, predestination is there, and you will refuse any other explanation. Why sould I even bother? If you claim all 250m odd Nigerians are as pure as the driven snow and I find one, just one, who isn't, job done. The other 249,999,999 do not matter

This is just lazy. Anyway fine by me cos I know it's impossible to answer those verses. They are too explicit. They say that man can do nothing but for God who directs what he does. In fact, they take away any culpability from man.

Only the Creator is perfect.


TV

A perfect creator cannot make an imperfect creation. That's illogical.

TV01:
Please read my response again. I added v28 (in bold) to be read in conjunction with the verses you posted (29-30), to show your cropping of the scriptures was misleading. Your hatred is blinding you . "Those who love God". Love can never be anything other than by freewill. God knows all, including those who will requite His offer of love and then predestines them.
https://www.nairaland.com/8659388/old-age-god/2#139238791


You are not even reading responses. You do actually sound like one who is just regurgitating - i.e. lacking freewill .

No, mankind was created perfectly for their purpose. Mankind chose to ski off-piste with devastating consequences.


TV

What then about the several other verses I cited which explicitly made it clear that there was nothing like free will in the destiny of man.

Secondly a perfect creation cannot fail.

triplechoice:
You've misrepresented me. I never called aging "mere" or even suggested it. I asked a logical question: If the body is only temporary vehicle, why would its inevitable wear and tear make you question a creator's mercies and intentions?. I didn't dismiss suffering but only asked for consistency .

Now you say you're a strong agnostic who knows little to nothing. But you have argued that the body is not the real human being, that soul or spirit is what you are. The two positions don't sit together. Agnosticism suspends judgement on the existence of the soul or a creator. It doesn't claim the soul exists while questioning the creator. So where do you stand?

You're wrong that I haven't witnessed the pathetic conditions of old age. I have cared for the aged whose minds and bodies had broken down, firsthand, in close living proximity. The experience didn't lead me to blame a creator. It taught me to pay close attention to my body so it doesn't degenerate from neglect, and when disease strikes to do everything possible to migitage it , without forgetting who I truly am: I'm not a body.

And that's the difference between those who can bear pain and those who cannot. Someone operating from Soul -based view recognises the infirmities, feels them deeply, cares for love ones through them, but doesn't question the "creator" for a body that was always mortal and will surely decay. That doesn't mean berating others who haven't reached that understanding. We should show empathy and share in their pain, just without getting lost in the process.

Being an agnostic does not come with a specific doctrinal creed as to what one believes or does not believe. Indeed there are things I believe, but I still have the overall attitude that we know little to nothing.

raumdeuter:
That is exactly how those who have known you for long feel about you, which is why they are largely disappointed that nateevs is being led and taken for a ride by people who shouldnt have as much sense as you

You are now a conspiracy for hire

A human being can be a conspiracy that is hired? Wonders.

raumdeuter:
If he has committed a crime, that is what the courts are for. He doesnt care about your wn fantasies

Of course you remember the courts when convenient and dismiss them when convenient.

You lack priinciple.

TV01:
I didn't feel the need , or have the time to debunk your position on predestination\freewill. I falsified your reading of Romans 8:28-29 to show your error.

I have provided a short précis on how to approach Christianity, but you insist on your own distorted reading. Love demands freewill. Which is why God in love went ahead with His plan to create man (the apex of His creation). Knowing at once that man would get it wrong, God also made a way to restore all things through the giving of Himself, when He could have just chosen to start over. The only choice now is ours. Choose wisely sir.


TV

How did you falsify the verses. I set out about eight verses. You simply put the Romans one in bold, said nothing about it and ignored the rest.

Is this the intellectual rigor you have been claiming for yourself. Disappointing.

Secondly.

As to your claim. Do I understand you to be summarizing Christianity by saying that God created a flawed mankind and then decided to save that mankind from his error by becoming a man then killing himself to appease himself over his flawed creation? Is that it?

raumdeuter:
He can fantasy about anything he likes just like you have your fantasies too. He isnt worrying about your own fantasies is he?

Not a surprising reply given that you don't mind that he apparently fantasizes about minors as well.