you're only speaking of yourself, sleeping sheep.
FnG
Morning D playbook shills, ready to lose another day?
cOnStAnTLy aSsOCiATe
That isn't 'questioning the narrative', it is implementing it.
>you may be right
we all 'could' be right if we don't output theorems out of internally inconsistent systems, but rather out of consistent systems.
Dividing humanity at source (e.g. race vs race, class vs class, religion vs religion) is an internally inconsistent system.
>do I have an open mind?
I do, but not so open minded that my brain falls out of my skull.
>your system is your system…is it not?
That is an axiom, yes. A is A.
Any system that is purported to contain an axiom that the whole set is itself divided into logically separate, irreconcilable, mutually exclusive sub-sets, is necessarily internally inconsistent for the exact same reason that you just advanced A is A as an axiom.
To then propose a system that is defined as internally inconsistent, is to propose a system that will necessarily output contradictory 'proofs'.