a) What if suggested property distracts one from being temporary restored (life) during ongoing damage (inception towards death)?
b) Why was the definition of property/properte (nature, quality, distinctive character always present) changed into "possession; ownership"? https://www.etymonline.com/word/property
c) What if consenting to suggested advocation implies the transfer of ownership?
The transmission of information about what was or wasn't...where did you get it from? What happens to the conflict between was vs wasn't if the transmission towers of information collapse?
What's this supposed to prove? He wasn't crushed by anything.
He's obliquely advocating for property damage.
Didn't seem like that to me at all. Mabye he entered the wrong link?
a) How would you know what's right or wrong without others transmitting you what's right or wrong?
b) What if ones consent to what others transmit by suggestion establishes an artificial "link", which binds ones natural free will of choice?
c) How could a link be right if it chains what nature frees? On the other hand...how could anything be wrong if one has free will of choice?
a) What if suggested property distracts one from being temporary restored (life) during ongoing damage (inception towards death)?
b) Why was the definition of property/properte (nature, quality, distinctive character always present) changed into "possession; ownership"? https://www.etymonline.com/word/property
c) What if consenting to suggested advocation implies the transfer of ownership?
The transmission of information about what was or wasn't...where did you get it from? What happens to the conflict between was vs wasn't if the transmission towers of information collapse?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hglVRXy2u5Y&t=49s