When a British Prime Minister talks about Best of the Best 2

Social IssuesPhilosophy

  • Author Thomas H Cullen
  • Published April 20, 2018
  • Word count 558

In reality, any British Prime Minister thinks about Best of the Best 2 and nothing should come of it. However, it’s also reality that when a British Prime Minister thinks about the 1993 martial arts sequel the presumption of right is not a uniform presumption of right.

A presumption of right, is a right that has the right to not be accounted for. The right simply exists. The presumption of the right is nothing but the sheer existence of the right. Therefore, if a presumption of a right is not a uniform presumption of a right, what this actually means is that the right has to be accounted for – which is a discrepancy.

What good is a right, if the right is scrutinized? It’s not physically possible to scrutinize a right, because otherwise the thing that’s being scrutinized has no right to be scrutinized as a right, but as something else.

If a force of nature gets scrutinized, that by default should mean that the force of nature hasn’t the ability to be scrutinized with the identity of a right: the identity of the force that’s being scrutinized should be a different type of identity.

And if it is, how is it still logical to scrutinize? If the force that’s doing the scrutinizing already knows that the force that’s being scrutinized has been deemed unworthy (because it isn’t the identity of a right), then what is the point in conducting scrutiny in the first place?

In essence then, when a British Prime Minister talks about Best of the Best 2, the meaning is an exempt logic that is supposed to vindicate its state of being exempt.

An exempt logic is a logic that’s away. A logic that’s away is a presence that’s irrational – it’s a literal state of violence that’s supposed to justify its need to be exempt.

The need to be exempt is the freedom from presence. Ergo, when a British Prime Minister talks about Best of the Best 2, the actual effect of this state is a literal state of violence that has no choice but to be absent – a state of stability that has the ability to share itself.

When a British Prime Minister – David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson or Winston Churchill – talks about Brakus fighting Tommy, or about the truly tragic nature of the death of Travis Bickley, the real meaning of this reality, and the real meaning of this experience is that an actual state of perfection has an ability – an actual state of nothing has nothing.

When a British Prime Minister talks about Best of the Best 2 (one of the best movies ever made), violence has violence. Which is absolutely insane. It should make no sense for violence to have anything, yet that’s what’s going on. Violence has the ability to possess violence.

Out of curiosity, the reverse of violence having violence is stability not having stability: but what would that look like?

Stability is the absence of movement. Thus, the mystery is what it looks life if the absence of movement possesses the absence of movement – naturally, the actual answer is elusive, but already one should have the feeling of being in awe.

The picture of immobility controlling immobility is a spectacle, regardless of details

Live in the UK. Want to help press conferences become scientists, and to help wedding gowns turn hyenas into oxygen

Article source: http://articlebiz.com
This article has been viewed 5,095 times.

Rate article

Article comments

There are no posted comments.

Related articles