Introduction:
The SHOCKING TRUTH of the Journalistic Illogical Fallacy demonstrates why debates are often useless mediums that benefit intellectual predators. Most journalists are cheerleaders sitting on the sidelines. While they gather facts and research, journalist often stray from validity, and inject their work with emotionally charged opinions and ideas. Truth is irrefutable and undermines opinions and personal convictions. Idealists are usually overly opinionated, and opinionated journalists often crave sensationalism and provocativeness.
Like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro, Washington Post writer Mark A. Thiesson projects the image of a crass, apathetic cheerleader living outside reality. Opinions are subjective-based perceptions colored by emotionally charged ideals. Journalists are symbolic warlocks and witches who spin stories intended to manipulate thoughts by charging emotions, making Marc A Thiessen and Charlie Kirk warlocks.
Propagating Illogical Fallacies As Opinion:
It’s sensible that Marc A. Thiesson would form and propagate opinions that Charlie Kirk had a faith in open debate that those who commit political violence lack. Those are the sentiments of every nerd who attacks using intellectual prowess and fancy terms, but can’t protect themselves from the backlash. Nerds have always provoked Neanderthals using witty, cutting banter. The Neanderthal was too crude to understand the verbal cheap shots, but feeling belittled, he defended himself with physical force, the only way he knew.
The Ultimate Uselessness of Debating:
Here, I’m drawing upon the wisdom of Hexagram 23, which warns of the dangers of debating, openly or otherwise. Debates are useless weapons, perceptive swords that often escalate from discussion to heated arguments.
Those who debate are often less interested in exchanging ideas and more concerned with forcing an opinion and trying to prove themselves superior, correct, irrefutable, or accurate. Debaters are argumentative, biting, callous, and theatrical, hurling subjective assertions with hurtful, belittling, and demeaning intent. Braggarts and boasters invoke and deserve vocal and literal eviceration. But are debaters are more often than not themselves boastful!
Like the adverse Page of Aquarius, debaters are cowardly predators who carefully circle weak victims they are confident they can psychologically decimate. That is one of many symbolisms depicted on the Five of Swords, another being predatory debates.
Conservative vs. Republican:
Washington Post writer Marc A. Thiesson would likely argue that there is no stark contrast between Republicans and Conservatives. However, the logic in the title Conservative is irrefutable. Conservatism implies a lack of extremity. Conservative denotes regulation, boundary, and restraint, demarcating the Republican from the Conservative. Conservatives believe in one God and adherence to one Master’s spiritually protective principles.
Conservatives glorify only one God and Master. Therefore, they don’t misplace their faith in corrupt politicians or fallible clergy, or place thier allegiance to silken star-spangled idol. They don’t concern themselves with politics, which never pollutes their religious or spiritual practice. Conservatives are either logical, scientific, or both. Contrastingly, Republicans place their faith and belief in their political leaders first and YHVH somewhere thereafter. Daily we receive doses of examples of imbecilic Republicans, Ron DeSantis for starters.
Racism, homosexuality, and atheism are mentally and emotionally damaging extremities, learned ideologies, and practices. Right-winged racists, gays, and atheists can’t be Conservative, and I’ve provided logical, sound, factual reasons based on a definition of conservative.
Marc A. Thiesson is your typical Republican who (apparently) prides himself on being a free-thinking, opinion-propagating debater who enjoys a good argument that showcases his intellectual dominance. People like Marc A. Thiessen rarely see the holes in their illogical and logical fallacies. But that’s because the Charlie Kirks and Marc A. Thiessens of the world live in perception-based illusions, feeling entitled to share their lopsided, personal convictions as entitled opinions.
Summation:
I follow the wise counsel I Ching Hexagram 23 admonishes. Avoid discussions with those who enjoy debating for argument’s sake. Predatory debaters never know who they’re dealing with, or how their predatory desire to conquer via debate, safely insulated, could humilatingly end with unexpected violence! Debates deteriorate into arguments because debaters focus more on forcing their opinions or purposelessly trying to belittle others. However, there are times when violence is the only way to respond to someone who thinks their insulated position entitles them to step on those they feel beneath them. Intellectual bullies use their wit to bully others, who, in some cases, will return the favor with physical violence. Bullying begets bullying, in whatever fashion the bullying manifests!
Oh Yeah:
Notice that it was a white male who killed (not assassinated) Charlie Kirk. That was Heaven’s plan to allow a white male to kill Charlie Kirk. But as I said, to defeat white elitism, racism, etc, you have to be white, or at least play the game like a western white imperialist. Political and religous figures are assassinated. Political activists are killed. I survived five murder attempts, not assassination attempts.