...then true vs false reasoning over suggestions by others; which implies ones willing submission to another.
how could one...how could we...
Consenting to suggested pluralism (we) tempts singular (one) to ignore self, hence becoming impotent when it comes to resisting the suggested temptations by others.
argue
The many are tricked to argue (reason) against each other over the suggestions by the few, which in return tempts each one to ignore adapting to the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
In other words...arguing implies conflict within self (reason/logic), which permits others the opportunity to exploit one without participating within such conflict.
money (claim)
Ones permission for others from self to claim M-ONE-Y (my one).
audit (resist)
a) Listening to what others suggest implies ignoring to resist (need) temptation (want).
b) others suggest one to COUNT, verb - "to number; to tell or name one by one", which when consented to, tempts ONE to ignore self for counting others, while permitting others to become ones accountants, hence wielding the power to audit one.
lynch
Who deserves lynching? The one suggesting that reality costs a price or the one consenting to pay for reality with fiction?
What if the question itself tempts one to ignore reality (serve) for fiction (deserve)? What if choice (reaction) serves balance (action)?
Those aren't yachts, that's the Ukrainian navy.
they probably have a big green screen room in that yacht where they film all of the video footage you see of him.
Just get Israel to oops it.
Weren't those the Ukrainian yachts that took out the pipeline?
...then true vs false reasoning over suggestions by others; which implies ones willing submission to another.
Consenting to suggested pluralism (we) tempts singular (one) to ignore self, hence becoming impotent when it comes to resisting the suggested temptations by others.
The many are tricked to argue (reason) against each other over the suggestions by the few, which in return tempts each one to ignore adapting to the implication (if/then) of perceivable.
In other words...arguing implies conflict within self (reason/logic), which permits others the opportunity to exploit one without participating within such conflict.
Ones permission for others from self to claim M-ONE-Y (my one).
a) Listening to what others suggest implies ignoring to resist (need) temptation (want).
b) others suggest one to COUNT, verb - "to number; to tell or name one by one", which when consented to, tempts ONE to ignore self for counting others, while permitting others to become ones accountants, hence wielding the power to audit one.
Who deserves lynching? The one suggesting that reality costs a price or the one consenting to pay for reality with fiction?
What if the question itself tempts one to ignore reality (serve) for fiction (deserve)? What if choice (reaction) serves balance (action)?