Tyb
>>16768639 ← Filtered
Nice projection, angry clown.
You mean you're an ignorant person because you didn't 'allow yourself to believe' that the 'robots' in the movieZone 414is something OTHER than a cringe 'excuse' to normalize a satanic ritualistic celebration of killing and raping underage girls?
Thor's Fight with the Giants (Swedish: Tors strid med jättarna)is an 1872 painting
Tri family puppet psycho killers DO NOT DEFINE THE 'MEANING' OF ANY SYMBOL WORLDWIDE.
>Unity with evil is evil
>But muh unity
Unity is logically an absence of evil (division), the phrase "Unity with evil" is therefore an oxymoron, like saying "Unity with division".
The newcringe4am division shill talking point has been received: Try to divide the indivisible and portray unity as not really unity and division as not really division.
These people's minds are literally broken.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU FAILED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BIOLOGY
>declaring things evil
The evil is declaring itself, anon.
It's not being sourced from the good.
>There is nothing worse than a midwit who thinks it's smart
There are few things more cringe than watching an arrogant jealous nitwit try to project their own inferiority voices as sourced from outside their own minds.
>Unity with…
Unity with division is an oxymoron, it doesn't exist. It is merely a statement uttered in verbal form, no fidelity with reality.
>if u look real hard
if anon looks real easy, anon will notice you're now trying to REDEFINE 'animal' to 'exclude' insects (WHICH ARE ANIMALS: THEY REPRODUCE SEXUALLY, BREATH OXYGEN, CONSUME ORGANIC MATERIAL AND CAN MOVE AROUND).
The loudest accusers of 'pilpul' are the worst fucking practitioners of it.
Good grief you people are insane.
>Things declared "evil" by Satan's servants for profit and power
Cringe attempt to invert the source of evil as allegedly sourced from deceived/trusting minds falsely declared as 'satan's servants'.
Child rape.
Child torture.
Child killing.
Evil declaring itself by Satan's servants while they project and smear 'sheep' as where the evil is really being sourced from.
Chi
Statement was already refuted.
Venus fly traps eat animals but are not animals themselves.
Cringe attempt to divide yourself from humanity.
>statement stands, animals eat animals
that wasn't the statement made, the statement made wasONLYanimals eat animals.
You're trying, and failing. To justify in your mind the raping and killing of children, because it's 'just animalistic behavior' jUsT LiKe wHeN hUmAnS eAt a sTeAk.
Your code is obvious, you can't hide it.
>correct ONLY animals eat animals.
False. Venus Fly Traps are plants, plants are not animals.
Jesus was a Galilean Jew. His followers even called him rabbi.
Jesus' mother Mary was a jew.
Jesus' father Joseph was a jew.
Jesus was a jew.
>if it eats animals, it is an animal
Now you're trying to redefine 'eat' to rescue your false statements.
Fires 'eat' animals, fires 'consume' animals according to your new logic, therefore according to your new logic fire is an animal.
Now redefine words again pilpul scam artist.
So your contradictory position is now Jesus existed but was not a jew, and Jesus did not exist because there is no evidence.
Then who is the jesus originally referred to as not a jew?
Your brain is broken.
>indeed fire is an animal
And now you're redefining terms again, now your 'new' logic is that planet Earth is an animal, because animals turn to dust on planet Earth.
Your logic approach is such shit it outputs EVERYTHING as an animal, which means nothing is an animal.
The reason you're making these errors is because your logic is predicated on an axiom of division, of inconsistency, which leads to ALL statements as 'proved true'.
LEARN:
I'll try to say this all in plain English:
Let's say we decide to accept the following two facts: (1) "I am a fish", and (2) "I am not a fish". Just keep those in mind.
Now let's pick any old statement, say: (3) "You can fly". Now let's prove that the statement is true!
Alright, we've already accepted that (1) "I am a fish". Of course, any time I have a true statement P, I can make a new true statement by making the statement "P or Q is true." Because to check if an 'or' statement is true, I only need to check that one of them is true. (If I tell you "My name is Dylan OR I can spit fire," you don't need to wait around with a fire extinguisher to tell if that statement is true. It's true because the first part of it is true).
So by this logic, the statement (4) "I am a fish or you can fly" must be true (since the first part is true.)
OK, but now let's say, in general, I have some 'or' statement "P or Q" and I know for a fact that the whole statement is true. If I also know that P is false then I can conclude that Q is true. Right? Because an 'or' statement is true if and only if at least one of the statements inside it is true, so if I rule out one of them the other one must be true. (So if I always tell the truth and I tell you that you have a billion dollars in your bank account OR I just ate a sandwich, you can check your bank account and quickly conclude that I just ate lunch… unless you're very wealthy.)
Alright, so far so good. We know the statement "I am a fish or you can fly" is definitely true. But wait, we also know that the statement "I am a fish" is false (remember, it's one of the things we assumed in the very beginning!). So that means, by what we just talked about, that the statement "You can fly" must be true.
So voilà! Using the magic of a contradictory system, we've proven you can fly!
ReAwaken America Tour Rochester, NY Momentum Is Growing (And Not Cancelling)!!!
https://truthsocial.com/@TrueGenFlynn/posts/108677237876805923