Maybe this might explain why?
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Implication of circular logic?
Implication (if/then) is based on balance; circular logic aka reason (yes vs no) is based on imbalance.
TION (action) implicates...reactions, hence motion being the base of implication (if/then) for any reaction within.
Implication out of motion aka if motion (inception towards death) then matter (life)...
Motion implies a linear foundation for ground to balance within aka for ones choice to utilize balance as the ground to plant seeds within.
Logic (conflict of reason) is based on an affixed ground (suggested information)...like for example suggested nihilism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempting you into a conflict of reason (some vs none); within which you choose to hold onto a side, hence affixing it within your mind.
"None of this is grounded in logic" implies your statement aka your state of mind, which is affixed by your free will of choice to NONE aka nothing; nihilism; denial; ignorance etc. which you willingly hold onto...otherwise you would be ABLE to QUESTION this...
These were really easy Questions to answer. This reply addresses none of which. Are you going to answer the Questions, or just sit 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 making a fool of yourself?
Aka real vs fictional + easy vs hard....doesn't matter which side one chooses, one lands in the same conflict of reason. That's circular logic....implied in your response. From who? You! Of what? Your ignorance of implication for your choice of reason!
"tion to" implies action (inception towards death) sending reactions (life) towards death. Your quest towards answers tempts you to ignore this implication, and waiting for answers wastes life.
a) Any reply/reaction addresses action, since that's where it originates from, hence each reaction addressed going "return to sender".
b) How could "none" be addressed?
c) Address/ad directiare - "towards making straight"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/address sounds like motion to me?
a) Does free will of choice require one to answer the questions of others?
b) Are you able to question anything not addressed as answers?
How could one do that to self if the label "fool" is being suggested by others? Why would one label self? What for? Why label anything if a moving nature contradicts any label attached to it?
What about labeling and idolatry? Isn't it considered a sin to hold onto idols? Have I sinned by not making the label "fool" for myself?
Not addressing the topic of the thread.
Choosing not to support your own statements with sound replies.
Spamming absurdity and nonsense.
Derailing the threads topic.
ᴳᵒᵗ ᶦᵗ!
Didn't my last sentence address "sin"?
a) A reply can only be made within sound, hence re-son-ance.
b) Choosing not implies denying choice.
c) Sound supports states of mind...both resonance and dissonance.
Do you think implication is illogical?
Sensus (perception) + Sentire (to perceive)...how does one perceive nothing?
De-rail implies division of rail...aren't most rails divided from one another? Are you trying to sell a monorail?
What if circular reasoning thread/tere - "to twist; turn" linear implication into a conflict?
Is conflict a sin?