Do dead humans exist? If human implies being; then at what point does one cease to be a human?
the main reason
Reasoning implies in response to something, so how could there be a main reason? Does reason represent cause or effect? Is there a conflict between cause vs effect?
Line (motion) generates boundary (momentum) for each thing within.
And that is what the debate is all about.
Debate equals reason equals conflict...whatever side one chooses perpetuates the conflict.
Abrahamics see the boundary line as natural conception...and natural departure...
a) suggested abrahamism (father of multitude) tempts one to ignore that nature (whole) sets itself apart (partial), hence whole to partial (inception); partial within whole (life) and partial to whole (death).
b) suggested "depart" (to be lost) tempts one to ignore being growth (life) within loss (inception towards death).
c) suggested "conception" tempts one to take and hold onto (concep) ongoing motion (tion), while ignoring to resist (growth) the temptation (loss) thereof. In-cep-tion implies being within received action, hence being the recipient free will of choice aka reaction.
life from moment sperm/egg fertilize new DNA expression
Try momentum instead of moment, and now instead of new and you'll get expression (growth) within impressing (loss).
natural cause death, not...
If nature implies cause of everything within; then "not, nothing" represents the choice of those within to ignore perceivable (natural) for suggested (artificial).
correctly define
Correct implies versus incorrect; hence an ongoing conflict of reason about a suggested definition (affixed meaning). Both sides holding onto the suggested definition as correct or incorrect; are ignoring to be form (life) within flow (inception towards death), hence solid within fluid...not affixed.
illegal
LEGAL (Latin lex; law) aka natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater). Suggested ILL; originates from EV-IL...the inversion of LIVE.
Others suggest laws to distract one from perceivable law...consenting to the former permits those suggesting to define (legal); redefine (illegal) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) laws at will. Perceivable law doesn't require ones consent; it forces adaptation (growth), while tempting ignorance (loss) from each ones free will of choice.
contraception
Aka reasoning against one another (contra) over received (cep) action (tion).
racists/gaytheists
a) -ist implies ones consent to suggested -ism. Others suggest -isms to collectivize (plural) ones (singular) consent, hence tempting one to ignore self for others.
b) RACE (Latin radix; radius; ray) implies ones growth outwards aka as center (life) within surrounding (inception towards death).
c) GAY (merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome; denotes more life and animation than cheerful) implies ones growth within animation (loss).
Only within sadness (inception towards death) can one be happy (life).
d) the-ism implies ones submission (by consent) to authority of another (by suggestion).
Pig-Latin (English) exchanged all perceivable connotations with suggested THE, hence the-ism. Example...the moon + the sun or la luna (female) + el sol (male) or der Mond (male) + die Sonne (female) etc.
false religion
RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew) implies binding oneself by consent to the suggestion of another. In this case...true or false implies ones consent to suggested definitionism. It doesn't matter if one chooses true of false; only that one consent to the suggested definition of another; because ones consents permits others to define; redefine and contradict the suggested at will.
Suggested religion (to bind anew) tempts one to ignore being "free" will of choice; bound within "dom"inance of balance aka free (life) within dom (inception towards death).
the discovery of technology
TECHNOL'OGY, noun (greek art, word or discourse) aka artificial (suggested) over natural (perceivable). Ones consent to suggested; while ignoring perceivable shapes ignorance into the cover, hence apart (dis) conceal (cover).
The goal of...
The few suggest progressivism to lure the consenting many towards outcomes; goals; achievements; trophies; resolution; fulfillment; purpose etc. Why? To distract one from being (living) within origin (process of dying); hence needing to resist wanted temptation.
Free will of choice implies response-ability, hence one being able to respond to perceivable origin (need), while struggling to resist the temptation of suggested outcomes (want).
having sex with
SEX (Latin seco; to divide)...natural order (inception towards death) generates internal/inherent division (life). Others suggest with (pluralism) as the inversion of being within (partial within whole).
One wants to "have sex" with others (temptation of lust); one needs to sustain self as sex (divided within whole) by intercourse through another for off-spring.
Off-spring implies apartheid within wholeness...not togetherness. Others suggest collectivism aka "we are family" aka FAMILY (domestics collectively) as the inversion thereof.
to keep slaves
Ones consent to the suggestions of another represents slave (consent) keeping hold of master (suggestion).
Do dead humans exist? If human implies being; then at what point does one cease to be a human?
Reasoning implies in response to something, so how could there be a main reason? Does reason represent cause or effect? Is there a conflict between cause vs effect?
Line (motion) generates boundary (momentum) for each thing within.
Debate equals reason equals conflict...whatever side one chooses perpetuates the conflict.
a) suggested abrahamism (father of multitude) tempts one to ignore that nature (whole) sets itself apart (partial), hence whole to partial (inception); partial within whole (life) and partial to whole (death).
b) suggested "depart" (to be lost) tempts one to ignore being growth (life) within loss (inception towards death).
c) suggested "conception" tempts one to take and hold onto (concep) ongoing motion (tion), while ignoring to resist (growth) the temptation (loss) thereof. In-cep-tion implies being within received action, hence being the recipient free will of choice aka reaction.
Try momentum instead of moment, and now instead of new and you'll get expression (growth) within impressing (loss).
If nature implies cause of everything within; then "not, nothing" represents the choice of those within to ignore perceivable (natural) for suggested (artificial).
Correct implies versus incorrect; hence an ongoing conflict of reason about a suggested definition (affixed meaning). Both sides holding onto the suggested definition as correct or incorrect; are ignoring to be form (life) within flow (inception towards death), hence solid within fluid...not affixed.
LEGAL (Latin lex; law) aka natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater). Suggested ILL; originates from EV-IL...the inversion of LIVE.
Others suggest laws to distract one from perceivable law...consenting to the former permits those suggesting to define (legal); redefine (illegal) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) laws at will. Perceivable law doesn't require ones consent; it forces adaptation (growth), while tempting ignorance (loss) from each ones free will of choice.
Aka reasoning against one another (contra) over received (cep) action (tion).
a) -ist implies ones consent to suggested -ism. Others suggest -isms to collectivize (plural) ones (singular) consent, hence tempting one to ignore self for others.
b) RACE (Latin radix; radius; ray) implies ones growth outwards aka as center (life) within surrounding (inception towards death).
c) GAY (merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome; denotes more life and animation than cheerful) implies ones growth within animation (loss).
Only within sadness (inception towards death) can one be happy (life).
d) the-ism implies ones submission (by consent) to authority of another (by suggestion).
Pig-Latin (English) exchanged all perceivable connotations with suggested THE, hence the-ism. Example...the moon + the sun or la luna (female) + el sol (male) or der Mond (male) + die Sonne (female) etc.
RELIGION (Latin religio; to bind anew) implies binding oneself by consent to the suggestion of another. In this case...true or false implies ones consent to suggested definitionism. It doesn't matter if one chooses true of false; only that one consent to the suggested definition of another; because ones consents permits others to define; redefine and contradict the suggested at will.
Suggested religion (to bind anew) tempts one to ignore being "free" will of choice; bound within "dom"inance of balance aka free (life) within dom (inception towards death).
TECHNOL'OGY, noun (greek art, word or discourse) aka artificial (suggested) over natural (perceivable). Ones consent to suggested; while ignoring perceivable shapes ignorance into the cover, hence apart (dis) conceal (cover).
The few suggest progressivism to lure the consenting many towards outcomes; goals; achievements; trophies; resolution; fulfillment; purpose etc. Why? To distract one from being (living) within origin (process of dying); hence needing to resist wanted temptation.
Free will of choice implies response-ability, hence one being able to respond to perceivable origin (need), while struggling to resist the temptation of suggested outcomes (want).
SEX (Latin seco; to divide)...natural order (inception towards death) generates internal/inherent division (life). Others suggest with (pluralism) as the inversion of being within (partial within whole).
One wants to "have sex" with others (temptation of lust); one needs to sustain self as sex (divided within whole) by intercourse through another for off-spring.
Off-spring implies apartheid within wholeness...not togetherness. Others suggest collectivism aka "we are family" aka FAMILY (domestics collectively) as the inversion thereof.
Ones consent to the suggestions of another represents slave (consent) keeping hold of master (suggestion).
Recent sleight of hand: https://img.gvid.tv/i/24euZoxM.png