lejeune’s ass: “How does ‘amazing grace overcome ‘destructive interference’?”
“If intellectual development were accompanied by stronger ethical reasoning, skepticism, responsibility and resistance to manipulation, then releasing powerful systems openly could produce tremendous collaborative benefits.” ibid
1st Corinthians Groupthink 13:10 © the friends of Jesus society
lejeune’s ass: “When America’s children are taught with real truth, primitive
fundamentalism is eviscerated. (No court accepts the validity of ‘Original Sin’
to use Pope Leo (et al.) to ‘rain fire and brimstone’ with Dead Sea stupidity.)
(Copilot: If your intended meaning is that Pope Leo and others use Original Sin to “rain fire and brimstone,” that relationship should be rewritten more explicitly.)
Exhibit A (“‘more explicitly’ illustrated graphically”)
How does amazing grace manipulate the mind and free it from the need or desire to covet ‘ignorance stamped holy,’ when the mind in question is dependent upon the existence of the ignorance to make ‘a dollar?’
If we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, can national security acquiesce to the freedom to undermine intellectual integrity with a rib bone fib? ( ⇐ perjury)
WDCopilotT***
Former IMF executive says China and the world need an internationalised yuan
lejeune’s ass: ” A ‘multipolar financial system’ would decrease the entropy revolving around primitive fundamentalism. It would ‘drain the mire!'” ( ← reduce lukewarm intellectualism, Sacha. 😇)
He self-funded a $45 million Nicolas Cage movie.
Then it was stolen.
Florida Republican-turned-Democrat responds to Trump’s attacks: ‘We don’t care about the insults any longer’
***
Yes, it works as a rhetorical question, but it is densely compressed. It appears to juxtapose national-security necessity with intellectual freedom, then uses “rib bone fib” as a pointed reference to the biblical account of Eve being made from Adam’s rib.
Here are three ways to sharpen it:
1. Keep the wordplay
If we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, can national security acquiesce to the freedom to undermine intellectual integrity with a rib-bone fib?
2. Slightly clearer
If we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, can national security afford to acquiesce when intellectual freedom becomes the freedom to undermine intellectual integrity with a rib-bone fib?
3. More forceful
If we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t, must national security acquiesce to a freedom that permits a rib-bone fib to masquerade as intellectual integrity?
I think #1 best preserves your original construction. “Rib-bone fib” is memorable because the rhyme turns the underlying accusation into a compact phrase.
Writing notes
- “Acquiesce to” works, although “acquiesce in” is traditionally used for accepting a situation or practice.
- “Rib-bone” reads more deliberately as a compound modifier than “rib bone” here.
- The central tension becomes clearer if freedom and intellectual integrity are kept visibly opposed.
What doth ‘brimstone’ Think?