Wilhelm44

Can't disagree with that one. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk

I'm not doubting the merits of debating. Charlie didn't invent debating. He helped to get Trump elected. Objectively it's hard to view that as a positive.

Open debate with the intention of winning hearts and minds for Trump and everything that goes with that.

I think he probably had a not so good influence on a lot of young impressionable minds. I'm gonna say this again, this is a guy who thought it a good idea to force his daughter to have the baby if she was ever raped. I'm sorry for his terrible death, but he was not a wise man. (I still don't get what's the big deal about Charlie being willing to debate others, that's literally what people in politics do, they debate stuff.)

Come on, he went there to win votes for the conservatives.

You said he was a hero because he fostered debate, but really he was part of a conservative propaganda machine. He wanted to convince people to vote conservative, that was the real intention. And once again, he was assassinated, was he truly willing to die, who knows. It was traumatizing for sure, and if some people need to view him in a super positive light in order to heal, so be it. Personally I don't feel the need to do that.

I have listened to Charlie. And I refuse to turn him into some kind of hero just because his death was traumatizing.

I'd say a guy who thinks it's a good idea to force his daughter to have the baby if she was raped, was not the most enlightened of fellows.

So we give him kudos for being truly misguided.

"encouraged an open debate", which is code for: "lets see if we can turn college kids into Trump supporters." He got assassinated, was he truly willing to die, who knows.

Which is what ? ps how can you say he wasn't spinning lies ? This guy was soaked in untruth. So he was willing to debate other people, so what. He's probably also not the first guy to receive death threats and still continue his work, what else was he gonna do. I'm sorry I don't mean to sound insensitive, I just don't see the need to elevate him to some kind of hero status.

He shined because he was debating college kids.

I think you might be the one who's deluded. Charlie didn't deserve to be shot, but he was no Gandhi, in fact quite the opposite.

I think the traumatic nature of his death is causing people to elevate Charlie to some kind of enlightened political status. This is a guy who said he would force his 10 year old daughter to deliver the baby if she was raped. He was consumed more by untruth than truth. How exactly did Charlie get you to question reality deeper ?

Im speaking my truth now, do i deserve a medal for that ?

He didnt get killed per say for speaking his truth. He probably got killed for strong tones of hatred and racism. And for being a strong Trump supporter. The assassin wasnt thinking to himself, Charlie is speaking his truth, therefore i need to kill him. Ur trying to turn someone into a hero who wasnt really one.

Yeah, but you said it like he was bravely speaking his truth in front of a firing squad facing death. His truth was also filled with a lot of hatred. Lots of people in society have the courage to speak their minds, so what. It was not right that he was shot, but i dont see the need to somehow elevate him now.

I dont get it. No one was talking about his good heart and good energy before this happened. It was a senseless murder. But that dont mean the victim was some kind of hero.

What truth was Charlie speaking ?

No, they said it was actually the physical body in these particular cases.

Not sure if this is related, but i have two friends (they dont know each other) who had experiences, where they woke up at night, to find that the physical body was levitating a few centimetres above the bed.

Yeah, i dont think the Lolita type theme was considered as pedo in the past.

Almost looks like a cube in that first link you shared.

What specifically do you mean by: cracking intelligence ? I don't think AI will ever be truly intuitive or original. But there must be some fairly decent models of critical thinking, problem solving etc, that will help AI to get to the next level.

She seems to echo your sentiment. My question is: Is the initial greedy gold rush not just a natural part of the process. Eventually bottle necks will be reached. And for these companies to remain relevant, they will be forced to address the question of deeper intelligence. You seem to imply that we will remain stuck at the initial greedy gold rush phase. Surely it is inevitable that that those deeper intelligence breakthroughs will follow eventually ?