The issue isn't him; but your choice of consent to anything suggested. You already consented to him as the source of information you not want; which under natural law represents your choice of want over need. Not want does not represent need...want vs not want represent a conflict (reason) caused by consent to the same suggestion; while ignoring need.
Ask yourself how you have access to what is suggested to you? In this case MSM through technology; both consented to by your free will of choice to be able to then judge the suggested idol "Martine Rothblatt".
MSM shows you 24/7 that it's irrelevant what kind of truths; lies and contradictions to both they offer; so long as viewers consent to reason (want vs not want) about the suggested. They could eat a baby on livestream; while discrediting it afterwards by putting a pixel over the picture; while claiming it's a deepfake.
In the Allegory of the Cave it doesn't matter what is suggested; only that the onlookers consent to suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Did I nail it? Tell me I nailed it...I so nailed it.
Eye of the beholder aka your choice represents evaluation of everything offered. You nailed whatever you choose to nail and don't need anyone else to tell you that you did. Choice represents response to balance; therefore choice represents responsibility over choosing. That responsibility cannot be shared; only ignored.
What if perception (knowledge) represents the same for all; yet comprehension (understanding) is different for each one?
Also...does nature offer text to our perception; or does someone within nature used choice to shape text out of what nature offered? Did you use choice upon perceived or upon text suggested by others?
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ?
Japanese were not recognising difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]
So you're saying Rothblatt is a psychopathic narcissist who gets off on the confusion he creates in the world around him?
e.g. it doesn't matter what he says as long as it gaslights as many people as possible so he can suck up all that juicy validation?
Did I nail it? Tell me I nailed it.
...
...
...
I so nailed it.
The issue isn't him; but your choice of consent to anything suggested. You already consented to him as the source of information you not want; which under natural law represents your choice of want over need. Not want does not represent need...want vs not want represent a conflict (reason) caused by consent to the same suggestion; while ignoring need.
Ask yourself how you have access to what is suggested to you? In this case MSM through technology; both consented to by your free will of choice to be able to then judge the suggested idol "Martine Rothblatt".
MSM shows you 24/7 that it's irrelevant what kind of truths; lies and contradictions to both they offer; so long as viewers consent to reason (want vs not want) about the suggested. They could eat a baby on livestream; while discrediting it afterwards by putting a pixel over the picture; while claiming it's a deepfake.
In the Allegory of the Cave it doesn't matter what is suggested; only that the onlookers consent to suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Eye of the beholder aka your choice represents evaluation of everything offered. You nailed whatever you choose to nail and don't need anyone else to tell you that you did. Choice represents response to balance; therefore choice represents responsibility over choosing. That responsibility cannot be shared; only ignored.
OMH u/free-will-of-choice answering with understandable text.
What if perception (knowledge) represents the same for all; yet comprehension (understanding) is different for each one?
Also...does nature offer text to our perception; or does someone within nature used choice to shape text out of what nature offered? Did you use choice upon perceived or upon text suggested by others?
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ? Japanese were not recognising difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]