REVOLT!
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
a) Being alive implies FO'CUS, noun - "a fire, hearth"...focusing burns one out.
b) LOT, noun - "that which, in human speech, is called chance; hazard, fortune; fate; the determination of Providence" aka the effect of an unknown cause.
Being implies as effect (life) within known cause (inception towards death). Few are "casting a lot" to aggregate many, which nature scatters apart.
c) As matter (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of motion, one needs to balance as choice, hence resisting to incline to either suggested side, as to remain at center of perceivable.
d) Being alive implies withIN process of dying...other suggest ON death to tempt life onwards towards death. It's being called progressivism.
One needs to resist wanted progression...not follow along suggested progressivism.
Gibberish
What if I write about natural (perceivable sound), while you choose to ignore it for artificial (suggested words), hence making it inarticulate for your view?
What if perceived as self implies natural; while suggested by another implies artificial?
Does nature articulate anything? Do those within nature have the free will of choice to articulate to each other, while ignoring nature?
You honestly contribute nothing of value to ANY discussion
a) Value (inception towards death) generates evaluation (life)...evaluating the suggested values by another devalues oneself.
b) Nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) and ones consenting de-nial of everything perceivable for it.
c) Contribute and discussion implies CON (together; with) DIS (apart, asunder, in a different direction) aka a contradiction, hence all contributing partials within any discussion finding themselves within a conflict of reason against one another.
Notice the option (up-vote or down-vote) next to each "contribution" to any "discussion"...it doesn't matter what is written, only that those reading it consent to conflicts of reason about it.
d) Honor implies versus dishonor...yet another conflict of reason, and no matter how much honor or dishonor one has; the conflict continues.
e) Notice that contribute implies TRIBUTE; noun - "stated sum of money or other valuable consideration paid by one ruler or country to another in acknowledgment of submission or as the price of peace or protection"
Next notice that free-will-of-choice doesn't con-tribute (Post Score - 0)...why?...because choice implies reaction within enacting balance.
Motion offers balance (inception/death)...matter reacts as choice (life). Ignoring this for each others suggested choices implies imbalance.
f) How about this...can nature contribute nothing of value to those within?
g) The topic here is about revolt...so how does discussing contributions revolt against anything?
If I'm the one standing out with my behavior from the norm of contributing to discussions, then what if I'm the one breaking apart from established authority aka revolting?
Do jews contribute to discussions or do jewish suggestions set the foundation for consenting gentiles to contribute their opinions within discussions?