Time Proves The Law of Non-Contradiction as False

[RCSaunders]

No - colours no not exist in nature. They exist only in the mind.

Curious. What word do you use to identify those qualities of things everyone else uses the word, "colors," to identify. For example, when the traffic light changes from, "go," to, "stop," (green to red) most people say the color changed. What do you say changed?

Objectively the different light are characterised by different wavelengths.

Of course, but that is not the question. When the wavelength being reflected, transmitted, or emitted by an entity is different, that difference is usually identified as a difference in color. When a prism divides a white light beam into a rainbow-like spectrum of, "hues," the difference in each hue is usually called a color, because each one is different. We are obviously conscious of those differences when observing them with our eyes, but it isn't our observing them that makes them different. They really are different.

Isn't that all that color really means, the actual real difference in the light observed, however it is observed? After all, it was, "colors," that were seen that made it possible to discover the differences in them could be described as differences in wavelength (when they weren't being described as little quantum packets of energy).

Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind. What he was referring to is only how the result of real differences in the properties of physical things determines which wavelengths of light it will reflect, transmit, or emit are seen, but the properties are real physical properties of the entities and the colors are real physical phenomena that exist as they are whether or not anyone actually sees them or not.

[Atla]

Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.

Then it's a different color at a different spacetime coordinate, duh. Such laws are still good approximations, especially if some properties aren't known to change with time.

[Sculptor]

Curious. What word do you use to identify those qualities of things everyone else uses the word, "colors," to identify. For example, when the traffic light changes from, "go," to, "stop," (green to red) most people say the color changed. What do you say changed?

Objectively the different light are characterised by different wavelengths.

Of course, but that is not the question. When the wavelength being reflected, transmitted, or emitted by an entity is different, that difference is usually identified as a difference in color. When a prism divides a white light beam into a rainbow-like spectrum of, "hues," the difference in each hue is usually called a color, because each one is different. We are obviously conscious of those differences when observing them with our eyes, but it isn't our observing them that makes them different. They really are different.

No. You are suffering from naive realism.
What you see is different wavelength. The retina responds differently according to the wavelength and sends a different code to the brain, where the colour happens. "They" are in the brain, an artefact of perception, not in the nature of light.
Different people see different colours. Naive realists like to call "colour blind" people as deficient, when in fact they just have differently arranges codes. Many animals do not see any colours at all.
Colours are not "out there". Smell is much the same thing. An object does not smell, your brain smells.
Some people can be blind to certain smells that others can detect. Whilst we would all be nose blind as compared to a dog,

Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind.

No. He opened up people's minds, to the truth.
No one is seriously arguing your case.

What he was referring to is only how the result of real differences in the properties of physical things determines which wavelengths of light it will reflect, transmit, or emit are seen, but the properties are real physical properties of the entities and the colors are real physical phenomena that exist as they are whether or not anyone actually sees them or not.

Nah.
Have you heard of monochrome Mary's thought experiement?

[RCSaunders]

Objectively the different light are characterised by different wavelengths.

Of course, but that is not the question. When the wavelength being reflected, transmitted, or emitted by an entity is different, that difference is usually identified as a difference in color. When a prism divides a white light beam into a rainbow-like spectrum of, "hues," the difference in each hue is usually called a color, because each one is different. We are obviously conscious of those differences when observing them with our eyes, but it isn't our observing them that makes them different. They really are different.

No. You are suffering from naive realism.

Suffering?! I did not know such enjoyment of life was called suffering. When I look around at all those who have fallen for one of the sophists' (from Plato to Kant) attempts to repudiate knowledge of reality as it is, I'm glad I'm not, "enjoying," that kind of delusion.

The belief that the world of direct experience, which is completely explicable in terms of what is directly perceive is the real world is called naive only by those who have been taken in by the lies of the sophists (so sophisticated) and religionists. They are all mystics claiming the real world is some kind of illusion, while the real world is some ineffable thing that can never be perceived or known behind the world that is directly experienced. How they know it, if there is no way to perceive it, is never explained and all their vain attempts to describe it are always only in terms of the world of direct perception. That seems truly naive to me.

For example:

What you see is different wavelength.

I've seen waves of water and I've seen waves in a rope and I've seen illustrations of compression waves of fluids and powders. I have never seen an electromagnetic (light) wave and neither has anyone else. What would an electro-magnetic wave be a wave of. It used to be thought of as a wave in luminescent aether but science has done away with that fiction.

The retina responds differently according to the wavelength and sends a different code to the brain, where the colour happens.

I have no idea what, "colour happens," means. There are different wave lengths of light and those differences are called different colors. You seem to think it is the brain that makes them different, but they were different long before anyone was conscious of them. Either that or you are thinking how we are conscious of them is the color, but the color directly perceived is only how we are directly conscious of the differences in the wave lengths of light. If all the light appeared the same (there were no differences in color) or the conscious experience was anything other than color, that would be deceptive or an illusion. Being conscious of the differences in the wavelength of light directly is not produced by the brain (how would it know which experiences to produce relative to which wave lengths), it is only how those actual different physical phenomena are directly perceived.

Different people see different colours. Naive realists like to call "colour blind" people as deficient, when in fact they just have differently arranges codes. Many animals do not see any colours at all.

Unless you can read minds you do not know what anyone else's conscious experience is. There are certainly variations in what can be perceived via the neurological system, but what is perceived is always reality exactly as it is in it's entire ontological context which includes the physiology of the perceiver.

Colours are not "out there". Smell is much the same thing. An object does not smell, your brain smells.

So a dog smells a bone, but of course it doesn't smell a bone, because the bone has no smell to smell. You are admitting the dog has a conscious experience of smelling something but denying there is anything for the dog to have that conscious experience of. There is no smell for the dog to smell.

Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind.

No. He opened up people's minds, to the truth.
No one is seriously arguing your case.

That's sadly true. The intellectual world has been taken over by the sophists denying reality and the possibility of knowledge. I'm not actually arguing for the realist view either because it is not possible to argue with those who deny their own consciousness. But I certainly do not care if I am the only one in the whole world who knows the world I directly perceive is the real world because it saves me from being taken in by all the frauds trying to put over some mystical world I'm suppose sacrifice my life and this world for.

Have you heard of monochrome Mary's thought experiement?

Not interested. I discovered what was wrong with idealism a long time ago.

[Sculptor]

Of course, but that is not the question. When the wavelength being reflected, transmitted, or emitted by an entity is different, that difference is usually identified as a difference in color. When a prism divides a white light beam into a rainbow-like spectrum of, "hues," the difference in each hue is usually called a color, because each one is different. We are obviously conscious of those differences when observing them with our eyes, but it isn't our observing them that makes them different. They really are different.

No. You are suffering from naive realism.

Suffering?! I did not know such enjoyment of life was called suffering. When I look around at all those who have fallen for one of the sophists' (from Plato to Kant) attempts to repudiate knowledge of reality as it is, I'm glad I'm not, "enjoying," that kind of delusion.

The belief that the world of direct experience, which is completely explicable in terms of what is directly perceive is the real world is called naive only by those who have been taken in by the lies of the sophists (so sophisticated) and religionists. They are all mystics claiming the real world is some kind of illusion, while the real world is some ineffable thing that can never be perceived or known behind the world that is directly experienced. How they know it, if there is no way to perceive it, is never explained and all their vain attempts to describe it are always only in terms of the world of direct perception. That seems truly naive to me.

For example:

What you see is different wavelength.

I've seen waves of water and I've seen waves in a rope and I've seen illustrations of compression waves of fluids and powders. I have never seen an electromagnetic (light) wave and neither has anyone else. What would an electro-magnetic wave be a wave of. It used to be thought of as a wave in luminescent aether but science has done away with that fiction.

The retina responds differently according to the wavelength and sends a different code to the brain, where the colour happens.

I have no idea what, "colour happens," means. There are different wave lengths of light and those differences are called different colors. You seem to think it is the brain that makes them different, but they were different long before anyone was conscious of them. Either that or you are thinking how we are conscious of them is the color, but the color directly perceived is only how we are directly conscious of the differences in the wave lengths of light. If all the light appeared the same (there were no differences in color) or the conscious experience was anything other than color, that would be deceptive or an illusion. Being conscious of the differences in the wavelength of light directly is not produced by the brain (how would it know which experiences to produce relative to which wave lengths), it is only how those actual different physical phenomena are directly perceived.

Different people see different colours. Naive realists like to call "colour blind" people as deficient, when in fact they just have differently arranges codes. Many animals do not see any colours at all.

Unless you can read minds you do not know what anyone else's conscious experience is. There are certainly variations in what can be perceived via the neurological system, but what is perceived is always reality exactly as it is in it's entire ontological context which includes the physiology of the perceiver.

Colours are not "out there". Smell is much the same thing. An object does not smell, your brain smells.

So a dog smells a bone, but of course it doesn't smell a bone, because the bone has no smell to smell. You are admitting the dog has a conscious experience of smelling something but denying there is anything for the dog to have that conscious experience of. There is no smell for the dog to smell.

Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind.

No. He opened up people's minds, to the truth.
No one is seriously arguing your case.

That's sadly true. The intellectual world has been taken over by the sophists denying reality and the possibility of knowledge. I'm not actually arguing for the realist view either because it is not possible to argue with those who deny their own consciousness. But I certainly do not care if I am the only one in the whole world who knows the world I directly perceive is the real world because it saves me from being taken in by all the frauds trying to put over some mystical world I'm suppose sacrifice my life and this world for.

Have you heard of monochrome Mary's thought experiement?

Not interested. I discovered what was wrong with idealism a long time ago.

You are a lost cause, doomed never to really understand the world in which you live.

[RCSaunders]

No. You are suffering from naive realism.

Suffering?! I did not know such enjoyment of life was called suffering. When I look around at all those who have fallen for one of the sophists' (from Plato to Kant) attempts to repudiate knowledge of reality as it is, I'm glad I'm not, "enjoying," that kind of delusion.

The belief that the world of direct experience, which is completely explicable in terms of what is directly perceive is the real world is called naive only by those who have been taken in by the lies of the sophists (so sophisticated) and religionists. They are all mystics claiming the real world is some kind of illusion, while the real world is some ineffable thing that can never be perceived or known behind the world that is directly experienced. How they know it, if there is no way to perceive it, is never explained and all their vain attempts to describe it are always only in terms of the world of direct perception. That seems truly naive to me.

For example:

What you see is different wavelength.

I've seen waves of water and I've seen waves in a rope and I've seen illustrations of compression waves of fluids and powders. I have never seen an electromagnetic (light) wave and neither has anyone else. What would an electro-magnetic wave be a wave of. It used to be thought of as a wave in luminescent aether but science has done away with that fiction.

The retina responds differently according to the wavelength and sends a different code to the brain, where the colour happens.

I have no idea what, "colour happens," means. There are different wave lengths of light and those differences are called different colors. You seem to think it is the brain that makes them different, but they were different long before anyone was conscious of them. Either that or you are thinking how we are conscious of them is the color, but the color directly perceived is only how we are directly conscious of the differences in the wave lengths of light. If all the light appeared the same (there were no differences in color) or the conscious experience was anything other than color, that would be deceptive or an illusion. Being conscious of the differences in the wavelength of light directly is not produced by the brain (how would it know which experiences to produce relative to which wave lengths), it is only how those actual different physical phenomena are directly perceived.

Different people see different colours. Naive realists like to call "colour blind" people as deficient, when in fact they just have differently arranges codes. Many animals do not see any colours at all.

Unless you can read minds you do not know what anyone else's conscious experience is. There are certainly variations in what can be perceived via the neurological system, but what is perceived is always reality exactly as it is in it's entire ontological context which includes the physiology of the perceiver.

Colours are not "out there". Smell is much the same thing. An object does not smell, your brain smells.

So a dog smells a bone, but of course it doesn't smell a bone, because the bone has no smell to smell. You are admitting the dog has a conscious experience of smelling something but denying there is anything for the dog to have that conscious experience of. There is no smell for the dog to smell.

Locke did the world a disservice when he suggested that colors are only in the mind.

No. He opened up people's minds, to the truth.
No one is seriously arguing your case.

That's sadly true. The intellectual world has been taken over by the sophists denying reality and the possibility of knowledge. I'm not actually arguing for the realist view either because it is not possible to argue with those who deny their own consciousness. But I certainly do not care if I am the only one in the whole world who knows the world I directly perceive is the real world because it saves me from being taken in by all the frauds trying to put over some mystical world I'm suppose sacrifice my life and this world for.

Have you heard of monochrome Mary's thought experiement?

Not interested. I discovered what was wrong with idealism a long time ago.

You are a lost cause, doomed never to really understand the world in which you live.

If anyone else had said that I'd be disappointed, but alas, you are always reasonable and I assume you are little frustrated with me. If I had your view, I would no doubt be as well.

No matter how much we disagree I always find your comments interesting and cogent. Thanks for that.

As for my doomed condition, I can live with it. It's worked out OK for over eighty years.

[Sculptor]

Suffering?! I did not know such enjoyment of life was called suffering. When I look around at all those who have fallen for one of the sophists' (from Plato to Kant) attempts to repudiate knowledge of reality as it is, I'm glad I'm not, "enjoying," that kind of delusion.

The belief that the world of direct experience, which is completely explicable in terms of what is directly perceive is the real world is called naive only by those who have been taken in by the lies of the sophists (so sophisticated) and religionists. They are all mystics claiming the real world is some kind of illusion, while the real world is some ineffable thing that can never be perceived or known behind the world that is directly experienced. How they know it, if there is no way to perceive it, is never explained and all their vain attempts to describe it are always only in terms of the world of direct perception. That seems truly naive to me.

For example:

I've seen waves of water and I've seen waves in a rope and I've seen illustrations of compression waves of fluids and powders. I have never seen an electromagnetic (light) wave and neither has anyone else. What would an electro-magnetic wave be a wave of. It used to be thought of as a wave in luminescent aether but science has done away with that fiction.

I have no idea what, "colour happens," means. There are different wave lengths of light and those differences are called different colors. You seem to think it is the brain that makes them different, but they were different long before anyone was conscious of them. Either that or you are thinking how we are conscious of them is the color, but the color directly perceived is only how we are directly conscious of the differences in the wave lengths of light. If all the light appeared the same (there were no differences in color) or the conscious experience was anything other than color, that would be deceptive or an illusion. Being conscious of the differences in the wavelength of light directly is not produced by the brain (how would it know which experiences to produce relative to which wave lengths), it is only how those actual different physical phenomena are directly perceived.

Unless you can read minds you do not know what anyone else's conscious experience is. There are certainly variations in what can be perceived via the neurological system, but what is perceived is always reality exactly as it is in it's entire ontological context which includes the physiology of the perceiver.

So a dog smells a bone, but of course it doesn't smell a bone, because the bone has no smell to smell. You are admitting the dog has a conscious experience of smelling something but denying there is anything for the dog to have that conscious experience of. There is no smell for the dog to smell.


That's sadly true. The intellectual world has been taken over by the sophists denying reality and the possibility of knowledge. I'm not actually arguing for the realist view either because it is not possible to argue with those who deny their own consciousness. But I certainly do not care if I am the only one in the whole world who knows the world I directly perceive is the real world because it saves me from being taken in by all the frauds trying to put over some mystical world I'm suppose sacrifice my life and this world for.

Not interested. I discovered what was wrong with idealism a long time ago.

You are a lost cause, doomed never to really understand the world in which you live.

If anyone else had said that I'd be disappointed, but alas, you are always reasonable and I assume you are little frustrated with me. If I had your view, I would no doubt be as well.

No matter how much we disagree I always find your comments interesting and cogent. Thanks for that.

As for my doomed condition, I can live with it. It's worked out OK for over eighty years.

I had no idea you were an octogenarian!
I suppose sometimes dogs get too old to learn new tricks?

[Eodnhoj7]

But that is the point. They are not "colours". It's light.



No very helpful. Even if you accept that colours are still subjective, THey are Qualia.

Then you are contradicting yourself


I think we have reached the "Whatever" stage of the argument, since nothing you are posting has anything to do with the thread.

1. Colors do not exist without light as they are composed of light; light=color much in the same way a body=atoms.

Colours do not exist without an observer.

2. If colors are subjective then there would not be able to be an agreement that red=red or blue=blue. Colors are objective as multiple subjective states align when a color is present; this multiplicity of subjective states aligning negates subjectivity.

We have agreement, but when I see blue, I see the same thing you see when you see green, And when Fre sees green he see the same thing I see when I see red.
We call them the same thing because of convnetion.
Other animals see completely different colours. Some see more colours most see fewer.
I am surprised you have not worked this out yet.

3. The river is both the same and different; same in the respect a body of moving water can be repeatedly referenced (ie the body of water encompasses movement), different in the respect that the body of moving water is never the same due to this very same change. Sameness is the observation of a repeatable limit or boundary which contains change; difference is said change. One cannot say "x" river without referencing to the same body of change.

River Smiver.

1. That is relative as the observer does not exist without colors given no color is no observation; the absence of color is the absence of observation as the absence of a phenomenon upon which the observer reflects is the absence of reflection thus absence of observation. Even "color blind" people see shades of grey. The observer or group of observers is the context in which something such as color repeats; under this repeatability within the same context the nature of color is objective.
1a. The universe as existing through itself reflects upon itself as only "being through being" occurs. This self-referentiality necessitates the universe as aware. Nothing exists without observation and this observation is not limited to human means.

2. Me seeing blue and you seeing the same thing as green does not hold universally because many can observe blue as blue as agree upon it. For colors to be labeled one must be seeing the same thing. Dually x color being observed repeatedly under y context necessitates objectivity.
2a. Animals seeing x,y,z colors human do not see holds across that species of animal given x,y,z colors are observed by that species of animals; a species sees the same color within that same species thus color is objective.
2b. The same wavelength results in the same color in the same context regardless of what that color is. If one observer sees x color for z wavelength and another observer sees y color for z wavelength then the wavelength continually produces x and y colors; color is repeatable within contexts thus is objective.

3. "River smiver" only relegates it to a singular example of a phenomenon in which x and -x occur simultaneously.

[Eodnhoj7]

Time is a duration thus along one timeline a color may be 90% yellow and %10 brown then change to %80 yellow and 20% brown.

Then it's a different color at a different spacetime coordinate, duh. Such laws are still good approximations, especially if some properties aren't known to change with time.

1. But each instant is a duration at a metalevel therefore even those x may occur in one time/space coordinate and y may occur in another space/time coordinate they both exist at the same time under the context of time known as "instant". "Instant" is a context in which meta time/space coordinates exist simultaneously.

2. Dually the instant is the point of change from one phenomenon to another and as the point of change contains both phenomenon. The point of change contains both phenomenon as it is the transition of x to y and this transition necessitates grades of x and y occurring as intermingled. This intermingling is one phenomenon.

3. "Properties do not change with time" is a statement made within time, if made within time it is subject to the laws of time thus subject to change. Anything observed within the context of time is subject to change.

4. Time is actualization. Actuality contains within it potentiality as the actual is a relative potential given actuality cannot exist without an inherent potentiality. The actual contains the potential and the potential contains the actual; the actual is x and the potential is -x. Because a phenomenon exists relative to context in one context P occurs and in another -P occurs, without the context both P and -P occur simultaneously.

[Sculptor]

1. Colors do not exist without light as they are composed of light; light=color much in the same way a body=atoms.

Colours do not exist without an observer.

2. If colors are subjective then there would not be able to be an agreement that red=red or blue=blue. Colors are objective as multiple subjective states align when a color is present; this multiplicity of subjective states aligning negates subjectivity.

We have agreement, but when I see blue, I see the same thing you see when you see green, And when Fre sees green he see the same thing I see when I see red.
We call them the same thing because of convnetion.
Other animals see completely different colours. Some see more colours most see fewer.
I am surprised you have not worked this out yet.

3. The river is both the same and different; same in the respect a body of moving water can be repeatedly referenced (ie the body of water encompasses movement), different in the respect that the body of moving water is never the same due to this very same change. Sameness is the observation of a repeatable limit or boundary which contains change; difference is said change. One cannot say "x" river without referencing to the same body of change.

River Smiver.

1. That is relative as the observer does not exist without colors given no color is no observation; the absence of color is the absence of observation as the absence of a phenomenon upon which the observer reflects is the absence of reflection thus absence of observation. Even "color blind" people see shades of grey. The observer or group of observers is the context in which something such as color repeats; under this repeatability within the same context the nature of color is objective.
1a. The universe as existing through itself reflects upon itself as only "being through being" occurs. This self-referentiality necessitates the universe as aware. Nothing exists without observation and this observation is not limited to human means.

2. Me seeing blue and you seeing the same thing as green does not hold universally because many can observe blue as blue as agree upon it. For colors to be labeled one must be seeing the same thing. Dually x color being observed repeatedly under y context necessitates objectivity.
2a. Animals seeing x,y,z colors human do not see holds across that species of animal given x,y,z colors are observed by that species of animals; a species sees the same color within that same species thus color is objective.
2b. The same wavelength results in the same color in the same context regardless of what that color is. If one observer sees x color for z wavelength and another observer sees y color for z wavelength then the wavelength continually produces x and y colors; color is repeatable within contexts thus is objective.

3. "River smiver" only relegates it to a singular example of a phenomenon in which x and -x occur simultaneously.

I'm not sure why you are failing in this simple empirical truth, and right now I do not care.
You can lead a mentally deficient to the swimming pool but it is not always so easy to stop him drowning in his own ignorance.
And I am done holding your life jacket.

[Eodnhoj7]

Colours do not exist without an observer.

We have agreement, but when I see blue, I see the same thing you see when you see green, And when Fre sees green he see the same thing I see when I see red.
We call them the same thing because of convnetion.
Other animals see completely different colours. Some see more colours most see fewer.
I am surprised you have not worked this out yet.


River Smiver.

1. That is relative as the observer does not exist without colors given no color is no observation; the absence of color is the absence of observation as the absence of a phenomenon upon which the observer reflects is the absence of reflection thus absence of observation. Even "color blind" people see shades of grey. The observer or group of observers is the context in which something such as color repeats; under this repeatability within the same context the nature of color is objective.
1a. The universe as existing through itself reflects upon itself as only "being through being" occurs. This self-referentiality necessitates the universe as aware. Nothing exists without observation and this observation is not limited to human means.

2. Me seeing blue and you seeing the same thing as green does not hold universally because many can observe blue as blue as agree upon it. For colors to be labeled one must be seeing the same thing. Dually x color being observed repeatedly under y context necessitates objectivity.
2a. Animals seeing x,y,z colors human do not see holds across that species of animal given x,y,z colors are observed by that species of animals; a species sees the same color within that same species thus color is objective.
2b. The same wavelength results in the same color in the same context regardless of what that color is. If one observer sees x color for z wavelength and another observer sees y color for z wavelength then the wavelength continually produces x and y colors; color is repeatable within contexts thus is objective.

3. "River smiver" only relegates it to a singular example of a phenomenon in which x and -x occur simultaneously.

I'm not sure why you are failing in this simple empirical truth, and right now I do not care.
You can lead a mentally deficient to the swimming pool but it is not always so easy to stop him drowning in his own ignorance.
And I am done holding your life jacket.

Your lifejacket was full of holes and broken straps.

[Sculptor]

1. That is relative as the observer does not exist without colors given no color is no observation; the absence of color is the absence of observation as the absence of a phenomenon upon which the observer reflects is the absence of reflection thus absence of observation. Even "color blind" people see shades of grey. The observer or group of observers is the context in which something such as color repeats; under this repeatability within the same context the nature of color is objective.
1a. The universe as existing through itself reflects upon itself as only "being through being" occurs. This self-referentiality necessitates the universe as aware. Nothing exists without observation and this observation is not limited to human means.

2. Me seeing blue and you seeing the same thing as green does not hold universally because many can observe blue as blue as agree upon it. For colors to be labeled one must be seeing the same thing. Dually x color being observed repeatedly under y context necessitates objectivity.
2a. Animals seeing x,y,z colors human do not see holds across that species of animal given x,y,z colors are observed by that species of animals; a species sees the same color within that same species thus color is objective.
2b. The same wavelength results in the same color in the same context regardless of what that color is. If one observer sees x color for z wavelength and another observer sees y color for z wavelength then the wavelength continually produces x and y colors; color is repeatable within contexts thus is objective.

3. "River smiver" only relegates it to a singular example of a phenomenon in which x and -x occur simultaneously.

I'm not sure why you are failing in this simple empirical truth, and right now I do not care.
You can lead a mentally deficient to the swimming pool but it is not always so easy to stop him drowning in his own ignorance.
And I am done holding your life jacket.

Your lifejacket was full of holes and broken straps.

Then hurry up and drown

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm not sure why you are failing in this simple empirical truth, and right now I do not care.
You can lead a mentally deficient to the swimming pool but it is not always so easy to stop him drowning in his own ignorance.
And I am done holding your life jacket.

Your lifejacket was full of holes and broken straps.

Then hurry up and drown

I would rather swim then have you drag me down with you.

[Sculptor]

Your lifejacket was full of holes and broken straps.

Then hurry up and drown

I would rather swim then have you drag me down with you.

I'm a shark, you you lost your legs.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then hurry up and drown

I would rather swim then have you drag me down with you.

I'm a shark, you you lost your legs.

You died from choking on the prosthesis of logic.