On the use of smart phones and the expression of protests

Hello.
Tuba should be extended regarding the use of TAH. Here I will try to explain my opinion briefly.
First, the essence of the matter: Torah study consists of two things: A. Knowledge of the details and the rules. on. Methods of analysis and ruling. The use of the Tahach is solely concerned with studying the methods of ruling and acquiring good and honest intuitions, and not with learning the details of halakha (which are found today in books. Therefore, the Rema wrote that in our day there is no clear Rabbinic law).
Conclusion: When you hear a rabbi give a halachic ruling, it is only an instruction for you on how to analyze and think. In fact, you are not supposed to hear from him what the halachic ruling is, but how to arrive at it. What is incumbent on you now is to formulate your own position while using his words. This is the true use. Accepting his words as they are (as is) is not a proper use, but rather a foolish act. You are using your rabbi as a book, and even a book is not right to use this way.
Another conclusion: If your rabbi, whom you chose to study with, says one thing, but there are other opinions, you cannot protest them unless you have also formed your opinion in that direction. There are no protests in the name of the opinions of others. They have their own rabbi and their own opinion. If this is your opinion, you can protest because you think there is a mistake here. So does your rabbi, of course, because he has his own opinion. But protesting in the name of the opinion you heard from your rabbi is a self-righteous monkey. Are they to blame for you choosing to study with him? And should everyone study with him and accept his opinion? In this way, you can protest against Yemenites who act like the Rambam because you heard from your rabbis or from your community who rule like the Shulchan Arba. Or protest against Easterners who rule like the Shulchan Arba because your rabbi rules like the Shulchan Arba. After all, this is foolishness, isn’t it? Do you think this is a use of the Talmud? This is the opposite of the Talmud because it means you did not learn to learn and rule from them, so what use did you make? And all of this, of course, even if the use of the Tah was to accept your rabbi’s opinion as it is, which in itself is a mistake, and so on.
I had a rabbi (a Lithuanian from Bnei Brak) with whom I now disagree on almost nothing. But from the beginning he treated me the right way, meaning he didn’t give me instructions and rulings but taught me to think and analyze. He taught me what is called the use of the rabbi’s rabbinical code, although I assume that if you asked him he would tell you to listen to your rabbi as is. Sus is a Lithuanian Haredi. I am grateful to him for his attitude and the way he chose to treat me. I wish all rabbis would treat their students this way and allow them to serve as rabbis and not copy their words like monkeys. In general, the rabbi’s role is to raise the student to be himself, coherent and complete, and not to duplicate himself (= the rabbi). This is true rabbi’s use of the rabbi. And I hereby protest to anyone who thinks otherwise.