Bad implies versus good; which a) represents a rebranding of want vs not want (reason) and b) is caused by consenting to suggested information by the choice of others; hence submitting to suggested or having "faith" towards suggested.
Choice submitting to suggested choices by others represents RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; which ignores the original bond under natural law aka balance/choice...not choice vs choice.
Choice represent the response to perceived balance (need/want); while the suggested choices of others (want or not want) represents the temptation to ignore need (self sustenance of life) for want (temptation luring towards death).
This is not up for debate.
a) not implies your consent to suggested "nothing" for which you ignore perceived everything.
b) you agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) over suggested information is what represents the conflict (debate). I neither suggested information; nor did I consented to any conflicts of reason. I simply adapt to perceived inspiration for the sustenance of self.
c) when you proclaim "this" is not; then "this" implies something; which you proclaim to be nothing. A self contradiction based on ignorance towards everything perceived.
I'm accusing you of acting in bad faith. This is not up for debate.
Bad implies versus good; which a) represents a rebranding of want vs not want (reason) and b) is caused by consenting to suggested information by the choice of others; hence submitting to suggested or having "faith" towards suggested.
Choice submitting to suggested choices by others represents RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; which ignores the original bond under natural law aka balance/choice...not choice vs choice.
Choice represent the response to perceived balance (need/want); while the suggested choices of others (want or not want) represents the temptation to ignore need (self sustenance of life) for want (temptation luring towards death).
a) not implies your consent to suggested "nothing" for which you ignore perceived everything.
b) you agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) over suggested information is what represents the conflict (debate). I neither suggested information; nor did I consented to any conflicts of reason. I simply adapt to perceived inspiration for the sustenance of self.
c) when you proclaim "this" is not; then "this" implies something; which you proclaim to be nothing. A self contradiction based on ignorance towards everything perceived.