What is this supposed to be?
Yes, this is the correct Christian teaching. We have a duty to condemn sin both in ourselves and in others. Why? Because sin is death and God is life. If we love our neighbor we will not tolerate his sin. The "you shouldn't judge" libtard false Christians (influenced by jews obviously) are wrong.
This is why the freemasonic (jewish) idolization of individual rights and freedom of speech or libertarian NAP is incompatible with Christianity. "You do what you want, as long as you let me do what I want to do" is jewed up philosophy that appeals to human pride and base desires.
So, the people you claim are witnesses as the bandwagon. That your argument, that the assassination was real, hindges on.
Asking "what did the people in attendance see then?" is not an ad marjoram. It's a reasonable question asking if the shooting is AI generated what actually took place irl? Read a damn logic and critical thinking 101 book and try again.
You ignored the 3 point made in the video because you want me to trust that the "witnesses" watching the show unfold on stage are more reliable than slow motion frame by frame visual evidence of AI.
I addressed the glitches in the video actually. Videos can be manipulated (AI is video manipulation itself). Of course witnesses are more reliable, especially when there are hundreds of them - this is a tenant in criminal law.
What if Charlie did get shot but they manipulated the released videos to make it look like the angle was different? Even if the video has signs of it being tampered with, it still doesn't prove the event didn't take place.
"But the audience saw Charlie Kirk fall. And they saw blood. ". Well, actors pretend to die all the time. And there are blood packets that explode, all kinds of special effects.
This leads me to the next argument - why would they use AI instead of practical effects that will look convincing both on video and irl? You mean to tell me they used practical effects but then decided to add glitchy AI on top to make it less believable? Again, it doesn't make sense. You have to run with one or the other - either it was fake AI blood that goes nowhere or it's fake blood that looks and behaves exactly like the real thing.
I'm going to now explain what I think the audience saw, but Im surprised you can speculate this basic theory yourself. The audience saw a fake assassination. Like watching a magic show, or a play, they saw some special effects and heard a gunshot.
Same as above - good practical effects don't require AI. In this case AI tries to emulate what practical effects can accomplish which is realistic physics and acting. So this theory competes with the AI theory you started with.
As for Charlie being here as a host, not a "real" person, I suppose you mean like trump, Elon, Putin, Obama, fucking Oprah and people like lady gaga...or anyone else in the main stream and political world. I agree they are at a level that we cannot Access, maybe not humans...but what then? Spirits? Another species that share our plane? How do you believe that works?
I don't have any reason to believe they're not human. But humans are fallen and weak and they do the bidding of those above them (Hidden Hand/Committee of 300) who run a satanic agenda to enslave and destroy humanity.
My verdict is he was killed for real based on the evidence. There is enough motivation for them to do it too. They also have the means and have done similar ops in the past. It's not a tough case.
They created the narrative they wanted - if they wanted people to realize it was all staged they would have made sure normies are convinced of it by blasting it all over msm. They don't care about what a small minority of conspiracy guys think because it changes nothing and we can't start a civil war.
You are believing the news.
You believe the news too because you don't realize Charlie Kirk is not even a real person. Wake up, sheeple.
No, I don't believe the narrative that's given by msm. Not agreeing that the shooting was staged doesn't mean I believe their story. It's a non sequitur.
And I was wrong, your appeal was to popularity, than bandwagon argument, or argumentum ad populum. Thanks for making me double check you fallacy.
Lol, no it was not. What part of "They didn't have the budget to have proper AI?" is an appeal to majority opinion? You can simply refute me without making up non-existent fallacies. An argument can be logically sound and still be false you know. I already told you my argument was a reasonable objection.
Avoiding data and information, purely because it contradicts your held views is called cognitive dissonance, a common symptom of liberalism.
Wrong again. That's called cherry picking.
If you don't understand something it's best not to use it to sound smart because it backfires.
Also, an appeal to common sense would be to recognize the fucking content I pointed out. Ring finger to pinkly finger, huge globs of blood evaporate as they fall. ..etc. The content. Not how it "must" be fake ori must have mis viewed it, because it just can't me be possible. That's seriously not thinking. There are impossible facts in your face. And you only want to not look at them. That's lazy.
Could be poor quality artefacts from the video released. Still makes sense they'd put out better quality AI that doesn't mess fingers up like it's 2018. But suppose it's AI - what did the people in attendance see then?
Sure. The argument you made just now is logical fallacy. You just appealed to the authority.
That's not appeal to authority. Appeal to authority would be saying Charlie Kirk got killed for real because the news/government agencies said so.
That was an appeal to common sense - if they want to fake something, they can do it at such a level that you'd never notice anything sus with it. I mean, they do it for movies, of course they can pull it off irl too.
It's also Occam's razor - it'd be easier to pull off a good ol' assassination from hundreds of yards away than to make an AI hologram (or practical effects and AI for the video footage) of the guy getting killed in front of hundreds of witnesses. If you can do something for real you don't fake it and we all know they can easily assassinate people and that's their specialty, long before AI, computers or even guns existed. In the end the effect is the same and if the method is cleaner and safer, it makes sense they'd go with it.
As for why they didn't do a better job at AI, I can only speculate. Perhaps they don't mind being a bit obvious, CK was throwing symbols and the media is doing it's "33" thing again. I don't know about you, but I'm totally over being a sheep. I will no longer just shrug shoulders and assume they are being honest.
That's a non sequitur and a strawman. Of course they're not honest and it's all planned from above. Of course they embed their symbolism in their psy ops. Symbolism is only obvious if you can interpret it correctly which normies can't obviously. But what does any of that have to do with it being AI circus and not a real assassination JFK/MLK/Lincoln style?
Why are you cog dis? Why are mentally lazy?
On the contrary - mental laziness would be going with a sweeping statements like "everything is fake and staged" instead of using discernment and reason. Why not go even further and say Charlie Kirk never existed and he was played by actors using a mask or maybe an AI hologram? Where is the threshold of what is reasonable?
Idk why but such pragmatic reasoning is kryptonite for conspiracy theorists.
This is a bad AI video
So what, they didn't have the budget to have proper AI? Make it make sense.
Come on, man! (In Biden's voice)
You waste the time of, and insult anyone who has done the work.
You can't do any work or come to any true knowledge about those things if you start from a faulty worldview built on false and unjustified assumptions.
Why would I listen or read what someone has to say about the world, reality or God, if they can't give an account of metaphysical concepts that they presuppose like knowledge, truth, meaning, logic, etc.
If someone argues that Christianity is sun worship I will ask them to justify the claim and most importantly - ask how did they came to know that. If I say that Christianity is true you would ask me the same thing, right? So why would I grant you the opposite claim? You reasserting your position doesn't make it any more convincing or justified. Imagine me saying "Christianity is real because the Bible says so". Would you accept that?
Ok. What is "the Unified Field" and how do you have knowledge of its existence?
Gnosis is doctrine.
Gnosis is knowledge. In the context of gnosticism, it is a hidden or secret knowledge. Doctrine is a set of beliefs. "Gnosis is doctrine" is an incoherent proposition.
Thats YOUR job to find out now that you've been redpilled.
Great. How do you verify your interpretation is correct is what I'm asking? What grounds truth in your worldview? You?
First off, there's no such a thing as a unified gnostic doctrine. It's relativistic. I may be gnostic and believe in things that contradict other gnostics' beliefs. So who's right, what is the correct gnosticism and how is this determined?
Second, why should one trust the Gnostic gospels over the Church teachings? How do you determine what gospels are true and what's your criteria? You ignored my question about how do you justify that knowledge at all. Gnosticism makes countless claims about the nature of our world and its history and I want to know how are they justified?
How has the hidden knowledge you base your worldview on been preserved through the centuries? And even if we assume it was true, what makes you think it hasn't been tampered with by its enemies (the RCC) who pretty much ruled the world until recently?
Deep dive finds the pearl.
Unless you deep dive in sewers. You'll only find crap then.
I know the book. You've linked it before and I took a look. It's a total mess of word-concept fallacy and wild interpretations of what the Christianity represents.
Again, gnostics have been around for 2000 years and I'd rather read what OG gnostics like Simon Magus, Valentinus, Marcion and Mani had to say and not people centuries later. If you truly cared for the truth, you'd read how their arguments were defeated by their contemporaries - the Early Church Fathers. It's pointless to rehash a 2000 year old debate.
Okay fine, now go study gnosis from all angles and prove him right or wrong.
The point is I don't need to study all of gnosticism to know it's false. I can refute it simply by disproving it's foundational principles like dualism.
Here's an example of a quick refutation of gnosticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BgDwGHmKc4
Everything you need to know about this has been published 120 years ago in the Protocols. Then none other than Henry Ford elaborated on this in his International Jew, as have authors from around the world like count Cherep-Spiridovich (The Hidden Hand) and Landowski (Red Symphony). Yet people still act surprised as if it's not a centuries-old plan to enslave humanity via satanic revolutions, propaganda, mind control, degeneracy and subversion of the Church and state.
This is why they don't need censorship - they just engineer society so that people don't research or get exposed to certain books and authors and even if they do, you convince them it's make-belief and wild conspiracy theory motivated by antisemitism. Why burn books when you can control minds?
It's always them. They (the Hidden Hand) are behind every single political assassination and bloody revolution. This shouldn't even be up for discussion here.
But Trump is in on it. His assassination attempt was staged and he most likely knew about it.
Yes, it may be a warning for all the talking heads who think of they can turn against them.
Btw, I asked ChatGPT to give me examples of other similar plane crashes where the plane got completely disintegrated. It proceeded to give me a list of crashes where huge chunks of the plane were visible and scattered. One of the examples which it claimed showed "a completely disintegrated plane" even had an intact huge ass tire among the wreckage.
The fact of the matter is there is not a single plane crash like this one in the whole history of aviation.
Pretty much 1984 really.
Both probably. Ultimately it's always a government psy op. The "domestic terrorists" are MK-Ultra programmed Manchurian candidates.
My mind is open to anything, but this is the dumbest move Israel could have ever done if it's true
It only looks dumb and illogical when you don't know their agenda and their methods. They would never kill Fuentes because he's their white supremacist Hitler/Emanuel Goldstein figure. They need a boogeyman to justify clamping down on antisemitism. This is why they hold AJ on air - he's their conspiracy boogeyman. It also helps with the democratic free-speech facade they put on their talmudic regime in the West.
Getting rid of Charlie works in several ways:
-
He's big enough to cause an outrage among the right and moderate enough to encompass the whole faction and not just the far-right. They want to deepen the left-right division and ultimately to cause a civil war.
-
They know it will come to people's attention that he recently questioned his allegiance to Israel and killing him sets a perfect example of what happens to those who betray them. They've already done this with JFK (https://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1752489118464979191).
These people are never stupid and everything they do is carefully planned and tested.
But before that, you answered to my question with "I don't care".
This action is disrespectful.
Lol, ok mr snowflake. It sure triggered you.
Anyway, leave me alone I don't want to talk to you.
Yes, I am inclined to believe the shooting was a real assassination by the Hidden hand. Not so much because they were threatened by Kirk, but because they want to stir shit up and get the rightwingers riled up for a civil war.
Their end goal is always a bloody revolution or a war and they always finance both sides. All they truly care about is spilling as much blood as possible because they are Satan's spawn. They hate people more than anything because we bear the image of God and He chose us for salvation and eternal life in Him.
How do you study gnosis?
There are limited starting positions when it comes to metaphysics and epistemology and I already know what they are. He only needs to state which one are his and how they relate together in a coherent and logically consistent worldview that can explain and justify fundamental concepts like truth, meaning, laws of logic, morality, knowledge, etc.
Stayed for the ass though
I said you're probably not intelligent, which is a challenge.
That's called sophistry. You were being a smartass. I don't waste time with lying sophists who twist their words and the meaning of what they say.
Go to Church and speak to a priest about your spiritual problems.
Goodbye.
It was based on his own words though and I have good reason to believe it is correct (unless he disproves me). It being subjective doesn't mean it's not objectively true.
Alright, let's cut to the chase: Why ought we value truth and knowledge at all?