Crime and knowledge, turning the light on

There is no new knowledge in the fundamental implementation and understanding of the law. The school of scholar works as a leaf to the legal progressions that started trillions of years ago that evolved and became the legal system of today. My focus is on legal relevant matters in the due regard of immortality.

A virus

We did draw viruses in high school, i forgot what it looked like. Including the backterias.

now that I forgot what viruses looks like. Even so, I can omit that knowledge and start from zero knowledge.

I know it moves, that's what we we told. Viruses are alive. bacterias are dead. I founded why the virus ended up having a life, rather than a lifeless bacteria.

The virus have a nose!! It breathes oxygen and then it wiggle and jiggle like the little baby in the tummy. Somewhere in the virus, there is a little whole, where the air goes in.

It is for the same reason why the waves are alive. It's dead without oxygen, and alive with the oxygen. something like so, because, we don't see the waves as something that is alive. Until, until, and that is a very big until.

Until you know that the reason why the virus move, is because kind and useful little oxygen, brushes by the little blob of dead bacteria. The movement in the waves is the life in the human. once oxygen flow imbalance stops, the kind little wave dies. Once we stop oxygen imbalance, the human or the animal dies. Once we stop oxygen imbalance, the virus dies. There are also other things that can kill the human, including but not limit to oxygen. It could be the lack of water that kills the human. It could be the lack of water that kills the virus. This conversation has just grown another leaf,

One will then ask, ..so how can the waves die from lack of water?

GREAT GREAT QUESTION. The wave should never die from lack of water, because, because, beeeecause... It is water. That's right. Big mamma wave is all water, 200 trillions million litres of water.

Ok ok, what if, whaaaat if, the water turns into a soup, or muddy soup and the wind is not strong enough to make the wave move. Can we say that the wave is now dead? see see, I told you, it was a great question that one.

Our knowledge leafs again, growing like a tree.

If the body becomes harder like a soup, it will take lots and lots of wind to make it move. Which means, that normal breath may not be enough to keep the body alive, if the water in the body becomes a soup.

We have found something very useful. IF WE CANNOT REVIVE THE DEAD, we need water into the body. Our knowledge leafs again

(we call time here, because this is complete. everytime our dead revive doesn't work. we think about the soup, and we need to add water into the body.)(scholar point, a go figure point, GOOO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT WATER INTO THE BODY OF THE DEAD PERSON)

A smart little person will say, but the person is dead!! it wouldn't work if we put water into the tummy of the dead person. Good point. I can tell you that it will work. So, oops, some people just protested and say, we use tubes, sometimes, we just tilt the head back and put it in through the mouth. the tube people wins. Were they feeding the body with water or food? Still, the mechanic of getting things into the body have been done. At this point we will be hoping that it is generic, else, we will have to ask the tube people for the right to put tubes inside the tummy of our dead person. Or or, ask someone who paid for that knowledge, a nurse maybe.

Someone will challenge and say, (we are leafing into legals) it is within reason for us to put a stop on you using a tube to put water into a person's tummy because you will end up crushing our service. Not quite, just leafed again.

..not when it is dead revive, because their knowledge base never included dead revive and age reverse.

Big moment, what about the cure of diseases.. yes! we cannot use their tube discovery to put water into the tummy after the person is alive. As soon as the person comes back to life, we must pull the tube out.

Why(have an ice cream, go for a walk, by now, your brain is filling up). If we continue further, the new knowledge will crush what we learned up to this point.

here is why?

the tube people have a business. they created the tube feeding to help their business. If we use the tube feeding in a way that will crush their business then it becomes unreasonable. They did not give us access to their discovery, so that we can destroy their business. Legal leafs again

Was there any terms or conditions that tells us that we can use their knowledge to crush their discovery. It there is somewhere there that says, you can learn from us, and you can use what you learned from us to crush us. Then there is a case there. ..but, it is still not complete. Because we will then have to run a 'within reason check'.

There is a question to answer

Why would someone help us, just so that we can crush them? The argument leafs into many directions from here. But here is the absolution

Negative is good

Positive is bad

(leafts again to many argument points. your reference perfetto, his reference preference. my acceptance. our acceptance)

Absolution: Positive is human normality. Positive is human acceptance. Destroying a person's service or product is negative, thereby low acceptance.

My position of inferred choice of Acceptance is to grant the wish and request of the original owner of the knowledge.

Completion: Tell me what the completion is?

Completion: The person only have to say stop because it is their discovery work and everything must stop.

We then go from here to the question of you vs me, us vs a king.

What if the king of the world says, we can steal his money to pay food for humanity? The king have an army. The king is the rule of law in a dictatorship country.

You should be for democracy else the king will steal your children, your girlfriend and the food you grow in your farm. Else the king will say, it is legal to kill all the babies and everyone will be sitting there s******* their pants with their face looking down saying

'thank you king. you can kill my little baby and her little baby because you made it legal'

So, when you hear a king or prince saying. You have to fight for your bag of sugar that you bought with the 2 dollars you earned from work. It literally means that the king have stolen or taken your bag of sugar and you have nothing to do about it.

It is therefore, the position of US the people, that we must kill the king and his family and his men or woman so that he and his queen can't rape us, or murder us and say it is legal.

I am never ruthless. But I know that the kings stole my government reserve discovery. For me to get the ownership of my discovery from the king of Arab, or Tonga or England. I must kill them all, or put them in jail what ever democracy or the people's government legalises. We have reached completion. Case decided.