New Discovery

[Eodnhoj7]

I said arguments are generally linear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?

Anyhow,

Free will is synonymous to randomness if there is no relation of the will to determinism.

I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.

Evil only means to hurt" in what respect in light of pleasure seeking hedonism, in light of good corresponding historically to self sacrifice?

Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil? Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

[peacegirl]

I said arguments are generally linear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?

Anyhow,

Free will is synonymous to randomness if there is no relation of the will to determinism.

I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.

Evil only means to hurt" in what respect in light of pleasure seeking hedonism, in light of good corresponding historically to self sacrifice?

Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

[peacegirl]

Where do I sign up?

Luckily, for a small monthly fee you can receive enlightenment via a an inexpensive email based highly affordable self-improvement course, at very reasonable prices.

But first I believe you have to buy the starter pack

Check out the review: ★☆☆☆☆ The Plan 9 From Outerspace of Books. Who could possibly resist?

I thought people here were more discerning than that. This guy never bought the book. He just didn't like one of the author's claims and misrepresented what was written. And you're going by that one phony review?

[FlashDangerpants]

Where do I sign up?

Luckily, for a small monthly fee you can receive enlightenment via a an inexpensive email based highly affordable self-improvement course, at very reasonable prices.

But first I believe you have to buy the starter pack

Check out the review: ★☆☆☆☆ The Plan 9 From Outerspace of Books. Who could possibly resist?

I thought people here were more discerning than that. This guy never bought the book. He just didn't like one of the author's claims and misrepresented what was written. And you're going by that one phony review?

I am mocking you for only being here to peddle a shit book to make money out of one of those self-help masquerading as philosophy schemes that only morons would buy into. And you are complaining that I am being unfair about how shit the book is.

[peacegirl]

Luckily, for a small monthly fee you can receive enlightenment via a an inexpensive email based highly affordable self-improvement course, at very reasonable prices.

But first I believe you have to buy the starter pack

Check out the review: ★☆☆☆☆ The Plan 9 From Outerspace of Books. Who could possibly resist?

I thought people here were more discerning than that. This guy never bought the book. He just didn't like one of the author's claims and misrepresented what was written. And you're going by that one phony review?

I am mocking you for only being here to peddle a shit book to make money out of one of those self-help masquerading as philosophy schemes that only morons would buy into. And you are complaining that I am being unfair about how shit the book is.

Why the vitriol? I don't get it.

[FlashDangerpants]

I thought people here were more discerning than that. This guy never bought the book. He just didn't like one of the author's claims and misrepresented what was written. And you're going by that one phony review?

I am mocking you for only being here to peddle a shit book to make money out of one of those self-help masquerading as philosophy schemes that only morons would buy into. And you are complaining that I am being unfair about how shit the book is.

Why the vitriol? I don't get it.

Sure you get it. You are a snake oil huxter selling timeshares in faux wisdom to whatever dumb loser is fool enough to give you money for such obvious and total shit.

[peacegirl]

I am mocking you for only being here to peddle a shit book to make money out of one of those self-help masquerading as philosophy schemes that only morons would buy into. And you are complaining that I am being unfair about how shit the book is.

Why the vitriol? I don't get it.

Sure you get it. You are a snake oil huxter selling timeshares in faux wisdom to whatever dumb loser is fool enough to give you money for such obvious and total shit.

What do you know about this book that prompts you to say such things? What have you read? Please inform me. How can I even have a decent conversation with you if you start off with such venom?

[FlashDangerpants]

Why the vitriol? I don't get it.

Sure you get it. You are a snake oil huxter selling timeshares in faux wisdom to whatever dumb loser is fool enough to give you money for such obvious and total shit.

What do you know about this book that prompts you to say such things? What have you read? Please inform me. How can I even have a decent conversation with you if you start off with such venom?

Explain the reasoning by which you get from determinism to the cure for all evil. Explain it without telling me to purchase anything at all.

[peacegirl]

Sure you get it. You are a snake oil huxter selling timeshares in faux wisdom to whatever dumb loser is fool enough to give you money for such obvious and total shit.

What do you know about this book that prompts you to say such things? What have you read? Please inform me. How can I even have a decent conversation with you if you start off with such venom?

Explain the reasoning by which you get from determinism to the cure for all evil. Explain it without telling me to purchase anything at all.

I'm not telling you to purchase anything. I gave people the first three chapters under New Discovery, and I reduced the book $1.95. You can even get your money back if you don't like it within a certain window of time, I'm pretty sure. I'm curious, are you a libertarian or a compatibilist? It sounds like you don't like the idea that will is not free. Determinism is not the cure for all evil. It is the gateway to knowledge that lies hidden behind this door, which requires another key that opens the door to the discovery.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm curious, are you a libertarian or a compatibilist?

Nope.

Determinism is not the cure for all evil. It is the gateway to knowledge that lies hidden behind this door, which requires another key that opens the door to the discovery.

Please tell us what is beyond that door. You know, without doing the sub-scientology pseudo-mormon paywall trick.

3 chapters of some whiny loser complaining that professors and rabbis don't take him seriously enough doesn't really tell us much about what the thing is that you won't tell us because we have to buy it from you.

[peacegirl]

I'm curious, are you a libertarian or a compatibilist?

Nope.

Determinism is not the cure for all evil. It is the gateway to knowledge that lies hidden behind this door, which requires another key that opens the door to the discovery.

Please tell us what is beyond that door. You know, without doing the sub-scientology pseudo-mormon paywall trick.

3 chapters of some whiny loser complaining that professors and rabbis don't take him seriously enough doesn't really tell us much about what the thing is that you won't tell us because we have to buy it from you.

Why are you calling him a loser? They didn't take him seriously because they were of the belief that man has free will. I already said that you don't have to buy anything. This is not scientology or a pseudo-mormon paywall trick. This is not for lucre, although it would be nice to break even at the very least.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm curious, are you a libertarian or a compatibilist?

Nope.

Determinism is not the cure for all evil. It is the gateway to knowledge that lies hidden behind this door, which requires another key that opens the door to the discovery.

Please tell us what is beyond that door. You know, without doing the sub-scientology pseudo-mormon paywall trick.

3 chapters of some whiny loser complaining that professors and rabbis don't take him seriously enough doesn't really tell us much about what the thing is that you won't tell us because we have to buy it from you.

Why are you calling him a loser? They didn't take him seriously because they were of the belief that man has free will. I already said that you don't have to buy anything. This is not scientology or a pseudo-mormon paywall trick. This is not for lucre, although it would be nice to break even at the very least.

Boring. Just tell us plainly what is the "knowledge that lies hidden behind this door".

[peacegirl]

Nope.


Please tell us what is beyond that door. You know, without doing the sub-scientology pseudo-mormon paywall trick.

3 chapters of some whiny loser complaining that professors and rabbis don't take him seriously enough doesn't really tell us much about what the thing is that you won't tell us because we have to buy it from you.

Why are you calling him a loser? They didn't take him seriously because they were of the belief that man has free will. I already said that you don't have to buy anything. This is not scientology or a pseudo-mormon paywall trick. This is not for lucre, although it would be nice to break even at the very least.

Boring. Just tell us plainly what is the "knowledge that lies hidden behind this door".

If you're that bored, then leave. I cannot cater to you like that. There will be too many gaps and you will then say, "See, I knew she had nothing to offer." I don't want to take that risk. All I can tell you is that the standard definition of determinism is not the definition the author is using. Determinism cannot force a person do anything against his will, which is what is implied. This is causing a major problem in this debate and why these two opposing schools of thought (doing of one's own accord and having no free will) cannot be reconciled.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why are you calling him a loser? They didn't take him seriously because they were of the belief that man has free will. I already said that you don't have to buy anything. This is not scientology or a pseudo-mormon paywall trick. This is not for lucre, although it would be nice to break even at the very least.

Boring. Just tell us plainly what is the "knowledge that lies hidden behind this door".

If you're that bored, then leave. I cannot cater to you like that. There will be too many gaps and you will then say, "See, I knew she had nothing to offer." I don't want to take that risk. All I can tell you is that the standard definition of determinism is not the definition the author is using. Determinism cannot force a person do anything against his will, which is what is implied. This is causing a major problem in this debate and why these two opposing schools of thought (doing of one's own accord and having no free will) cannot be reconciled.

You've been pushing this book for decades. Surely any question I might have about it is easy for you to answer.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

[Eodnhoj7]

I said arguments are generally linear.

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?

Anyhow,

Free will is synonymous to randomness if there is no relation of the will to determinism.

I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.

Evil only means to hurt" in what respect in light of pleasure seeking hedonism, in light of good corresponding historically to self sacrifice?

Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?