Why do globies talk about apparent sizes and how the sun and moon always appear to look the same size for a human view point??? Have they never been outside??? The moon can double in apparent size.
Why do flattards talk about "everything is flat"?? they saw one flat part!! First of all, How many shapes have multiple flat sides??? Where do the constellations go if pancake?
Both sides take massive leaps of faith mixed with heavy assumption. It's really ridiculous to take more than a year or two to sort it out.
Is this just a program running in the background scripted to have us choose between two lies? You really gonna take a false man made hegelian dialect in the kipper and just accept it because "lazy"? Do you care about the truth or do you care about being comfortable? Both cost your life. Do you want quick fast transitory reward or go for the big prizes?
Nah.
Strange that you keep spamming the proven lie side then, isn’t it.
Yes, you’re part of it.
“Truth” vs. “lies” is not a false dialectic.
Irony.
Fuck you're retarded
Great argument. Thanks for confirming Earth isn’t flat.
Disinfo cunt.
a) Nature gives choice in-between sides...taking any side ignores choice.
b) Consenting to a suggestion implies choosing a side...want or not want, while ignoring perceivable need.
c) Perception needs to respond to origin (perceivable)...suggestion tempts one to "leap" towards outcome.
Because speech aka dis-course was suggested by another to tempt one off-course. What does a course imply? Onward movement! What does dis-course imply? Circular logic turning into conflicts of reason!
Please tell us how that is a "bad thing". Just accept it and choose reason, it is a far better excersise. Conflicts of reason are 10X superior to word analysisism.
a) Nature moves sound straight through...words (logos) tempt circular thinking inwardly (logic), which turns against one another outwardly (reason).
b) Pleading implies wanting, while ignoring need.
c) A thing implies a partial within whole; separated from one another. Good vs bad reasoning turns things against one another artificially, while ignoring natural separation.
If being implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death); then both acceptance and denial destroys being. Only resisting the temptation to hold onto sustains being.
a) Choice implies within balance...choosing to hold onto any side implies imbalance for choice.
b) Reason implies a conflict towards outcome (winning vs losing)...choice implies adaptation to origin, hence reason tempting one with suggested outcomes to TURN from perceivable origin. An inversion.
Both sides within any conflict of reason consent to VS aka versus/verto - "to turn" aka turning against each other for mutual destruction.
A conflict of reason cannot be dissolved by those fighting each other within it, only by resisting the temptation to hold onto either side, which would sustain ones choice within balance.
a) Can you name one conflict of reason that was dissolved?
b) Notice the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...RE (ones response to) SON (all sound), hence resonance...not conflicts of dissonance.
c) Analysis implies separation; both words and -isms imply combination.
Imbalance implies an artificial combination of choice vs choice; while being choice within balance implies a natural separation.
d) There can be only one....one for all and all for each one within. 0 (nothing) tempts one to ignore 1 (everything).
False. Who or what is getting "destroyed"?? This isn't a gun, bomb, missile war. Using reason is not going to destroy anything. When was the last time refuting and defending resulted in actual damage? If two people argue in a house, will the house explode? Your belief suggests it would! Which is of course false, because your beliefs are false¿
The only thing reasons "tempts" anyone to do, is to grow. Why, do you hate growth now? SAD.
Like the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate. There was a "winner" there. And other examples, too.
Ehh, no it doesn't.
I'm not tempted to ignore anything. How silly. When have YOU ever been "tempted" to ignore anything?
Nothing can't tempt anything if it tried.
SIDE 1: Word analysis and guessing about what implies what is better.
SIDE 2: Reason is better. Rebut and defend is better.
Which side do you pick? Do you continue with your analysis of words, or do you choose reason? Your belief says that choosing sides is bad.
True vs false tempts one (life) to ignore change (inception towards death)...hence holding onto a SIDE corrupting ones SIGHT.
a) There can be only one weapon...ones weapon of choice. No gun; bomb or missile could be utilized without it.
b) Ideological war implies a conflict of reason (war) based on circular thinking (logic) over suggested ideas (ideo)...that's the foundation for any gun; bomb or missile war.
a) Nothing (not) implies the inversion of everything aka ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested...that's self destructive logic, which turns into mutual destruction within the resulting conflicts of reason.
b) Nature uses; each one within re-uses nature. Few tempt many to ignore that by suggesting them to use artifice within nature.
a) Time aka holding onto past; present; future, while ignoring ones presence within the perceivable moment(um) of motion aka now.
b) Suggested abortion tempts gentiles into a conflict of reason...pro-life vs pro-choice. It's this conflict of reason which sustains abortion, because it keeps many busy against each other, while ignoring that few are aborting the off-spring of many.
And to add insult to injury...being alive implies having choice; while having choice implies being alive. Pro-life vs pro- choice represents an asinine contradiction. "Hey goyim, which side do you choose...life or choice?"
If implies then...a separation by motion. Two implies one separated unit of matter holding onto another one within a conflict of reason, while ignoring the natural separation of motion (inception towards death) into matter (life).
Ignorance implies an implosion. The argueMENT happens within ones mind, which is also where the enemy resides...en-e-my (within me).
The only thing implies ONE...reason implies a duel (one vs one) aka dual-ism (two). Reasoning contradicts the only thing.
Growth (life) implies ones struggle within loss (inception towards death)...love vs hate implies growth vs growth, while ignoring loss aka the temptation to ignore resisting.
Two losers fighting within a ring...the one losing less being declared a "winner" from outside the ring. Whatever those losers were debating...others losers will continue to debate each other over.
Win/winnan/wennanan - "to seek to gain"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=win
Coming into being implies one (perception) gaining access to all (perceivable)...seeking to gain more than all is offering one...that's self destructive denial of reality for fiction.
Everything moves each thing apart from one another...focusing on anything tempts one to ignore everything else.
Being implies resistance (life) within temptation (inception towards death); hence everything tempting one to ignore resisting.
Ignorance implies the path (inception towards death) of least resistance (life).
Whenever one chooses want over need. Reasoning implies want vs not want, while ignoring need.
Test this by holding your breath...does wanting vs not wanting to breathe change the need to breathe, or does the artificial conflict tempt one to temporary ignore the ongoing force of nature?
Everything forces each thing to adapt...ignoring to adapt implies the temptation. To distract from ones ignorance...others are suggesting nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) to tempt ones willing de-nial of perceivable for suggested. The resulting conflict of reason (yes vs no) distracts one with others from resisting ignorance, which represents each ones "trial" within natural law.
Analysis implies ones sight...not one side against another.
Reasoning against one another is based on ones consent to suggested words, hence a synthesis of consent (to buy) and suggested (to sell) aka a binding contract for ones "free" will of choice with the happy merchant of temptation, who tricked both sides to sell out by buying into mutual destruction.
Balance allows free will of choice to pick...picking a side imbalances choice.
Nature doesn't suggest sides...nature (all perceivable) generates sight (ones perception).
Continue/continere - "to hold together"...being implies apart from one another, while needing to let go of whatever one wants to hold onto, hence wielding free will of choice within a need/want balance.
One cannot hold onto need, while holding onto want establishes an imbalance against not want.