a) Suggesting any -ism tempts consent, which cultivates ignorance of perceivable...if consented to.
b) Sceptic/spek - "to observe; hold onto" tempts one to ignore that agency/action/ag - "motion" cannot be held onto.
c) A challenger aka a claimant implies ones choice to claim (consent) from another (suggested); while ignoring that nature (perceivable) cannot be claimed aka held onto, since it moves.
d) Pseudo (suggested information) tempts one to ignore natural (perceivable inspiration).
ethical skepticism vs pseudo skepticism
Both sides consent to the same suggested -ism, hence fighting each other from different sides of the same deception. These conflicts are called "logic/reason".
a) Suggesting any -ism tempts consent, which cultivates ignorance of perceivable...if consented to.
b) Sceptic/spek - "to observe; hold onto" tempts one to ignore that agency/action/ag - "motion" cannot be held onto.
c) A challenger aka a claimant implies ones choice to claim (consent) from another (suggested); while ignoring that nature (perceivable) cannot be claimed aka held onto, since it moves.
d) Pseudo (suggested information) tempts one to ignore natural (perceivable inspiration).
Both sides consent to the same suggested -ism, hence fighting each other from different sides of the same deception. These conflicts are called "logic/reason".