It's astute to realize that they're representing multiple "opposing" viewpoints. There's even threads where they argue with each other to try to create a smokescreen. Makes me chuckle.
It's astute to realize that they're representing multiple "opposing" viewpoints.
a) consenting to suggested allows those suggesting to shape the viewpoint of those consenting.
b) consenting to want or not want suggested shapes a want vs not want conflict of reason, which gives those suggesting the power to control both sides, while shaping viewpoints.
try to create a smokescreen
a) reasoning over suggested represents the smokescreen over adaptation within perceivable. Why? Because watching perceivable through the "screen" of suggested makes ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested the "smoke" clouding ones comprehension.
b) ones consent to suggested creationism (out of nothing) allows others to suggest created information, which tempts one to reason over its validity against others. Nature doesn't make suggestions.
It's astute to realize that they're representing multiple "opposing" viewpoints. There's even threads where they argue with each other to try to create a smokescreen. Makes me chuckle.
a) consenting to suggested allows those suggesting to shape the viewpoint of those consenting.
b) consenting to want or not want suggested shapes a want vs not want conflict of reason, which gives those suggesting the power to control both sides, while shaping viewpoints.
a) reasoning over suggested represents the smokescreen over adaptation within perceivable. Why? Because watching perceivable through the "screen" of suggested makes ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested the "smoke" clouding ones comprehension.
b) ones consent to suggested creationism (out of nothing) allows others to suggest created information, which tempts one to reason over its validity against others. Nature doesn't make suggestions.