- 19,345
- 9,934
@Dog3352 not my fault you guys don't do the best of jobs to explain how it's type 2 or 1. Also Source being type 2 with the information provided in both the cosmology blog and the profiles do not remotely explain type 2 concept for the source. All of this just sounds like a type 3 concept for the source.
@Dereck03 So did you like, ignore what type 3 concept hax remotely says? Because it says this little line here.
And what exactly does the source govern again? The specific individual in question? Like how it's stated in the cosmology blog? This is textbook definition type 3 concept hax.
As for the whole make a CRT to nuke the source being type 2 well... someone's already did that so have fun with that.
@Dereck03 So did you like, ignore what type 3 concept hax remotely says? Because it says this little line here.
Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon.
And what exactly does the source govern again? The specific individual in question? Like how it's stated in the cosmology blog? This is textbook definition type 3 concept hax.
As for the whole make a CRT to nuke the source being type 2 well... someone's already did that so have fun with that.