I've been somewhat of a thorn in my right-wing family's side regarding the police issue for as long as I can remember. It typically lands on "agree to disagree" and a subject change, but I've gotten a LOT less pushback over the last year of so.
Even the staunchest Reaganites are realizing that the whole of society's bullshit is being facilitated by the police (or at the very least, the police are doing nothing to stop it).
a) agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) represents the conflict of reason; caused by consenting to suggested information (want) over perceivable inspiration (need).
b) as form (life) within flow (inception towards death) one represents the subject of constant perceivable change...reasoning about suggestions tempts one to ignore the ongoing (inspiration) for the temporary (information).
I've gotten a LOT less pushback over the last year of so.
Living within the process of dying implies being temporary resistance within ongoing velocity; so the frequency of responding choice can be used to both grow resistance (adaptation to perceivable) or diminish resistance (consent to suggested).
Their resistance is diminishing; the longer they ignore perceivable inspiration for suggested information. You suggesting them information over "the last year or so" implies them having to ignore (subject change) more; hence reducing their resistance quicker. The issue with that is that lack of resistance destroys the living within the process of dying and only adaptation to perceivable inspiration grows resistance.
Try using need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want aka agree vs disagree aka believing vs not believing etc.). This way you will grow; which will express inspiration for them to grow themselves out of their willing ignorance.
I've been somewhat of a thorn in my right-wing family's side regarding the police issue for as long as I can remember. It typically lands on "agree to disagree" and a subject change, but I've gotten a LOT less pushback over the last year of so.
Even the staunchest Reaganites are realizing that the whole of society's bullshit is being facilitated by the police (or at the very least, the police are doing nothing to stop it).
a) agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) represents the conflict of reason; caused by consenting to suggested information (want) over perceivable inspiration (need).
b) as form (life) within flow (inception towards death) one represents the subject of constant perceivable change...reasoning about suggestions tempts one to ignore the ongoing (inspiration) for the temporary (information).
Living within the process of dying implies being temporary resistance within ongoing velocity; so the frequency of responding choice can be used to both grow resistance (adaptation to perceivable) or diminish resistance (consent to suggested).
Their resistance is diminishing; the longer they ignore perceivable inspiration for suggested information. You suggesting them information over "the last year or so" implies them having to ignore (subject change) more; hence reducing their resistance quicker. The issue with that is that lack of resistance destroys the living within the process of dying and only adaptation to perceivable inspiration grows resistance.
Try using need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want aka agree vs disagree aka believing vs not believing etc.). This way you will grow; which will express inspiration for them to grow themselves out of their willing ignorance.