New Discovery

[peacegirl]

I entered this forum without any understanding of the underlying conflict between you and Accelafine.. Please don't bring me into it. Whatever they choose is up to them. Have you read nothing?

Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.

Hmm, so you say it's a choice then? But you say nothing about how your deterministic function works with that choice they are making... Meanwhile not everyone views their sexuality, gender identity and so on actual choices that are available to them, they see these aspects of their selves as determined in advance. So where do you draw the line of that which is chosen and that which is not? Blurring the lines as your theory does, necessarily comes at a cost.

[Atla]

You just think the claim is impossible, which is understandable, but you need to contain your skepticism long enough to hear what the author has to say. You haven't done that.

Well I've read most of chapter 1 and half of chapter 2, after barely surviving the prefaces and introductions which were one tedious red flag as expected.

I guess you're here because you want to know why the author's work is nonsense, you know it deep down, so you can put this whole thing to rest. But you can't or don't want to figure it out on your own and others couldn't be bothered to look at it. Well okay let's see some of his tricks that stood out imo (tell me if I misunderstood something he said), I'm sure there are more but this was the most I could handle at once.

Later, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will, and he responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame or punish anything he does, is that correct?” And when I answered, “Right,”

What? Determinism only means here that we can't reasonably blame people for making the wrong choices out of free will, because they have no free will. But we can still totally blame them otherwise, and often should imo. Do you know what determinism is? It can't do away with blame in general. Unless you use an odd, outdated definition for determinism that's no longer relevant today.

Therefore, it is imperative that you know, well in advance, that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific, and undeniable

I haven't seen anything really "scientific" in the one and half chapters I've read, which could be because the author didn't learn much about science during his 7 grades at school and just uses the word. Nor have I seen anything complete or undeniable. The author tells us in advance to just trust him and accept the impossible.

Anyway, more importantly, determinism obviously can't be proven mathematically, what would that even mean? I say this as a determinist.

he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all.

This is nonsense, not an undeniable mathemathical law. Yes 4 billion years of life did roughly one thing: do what is best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what life is basically. But it's still possible to deviate from this. It almost, almost never happens, but it CAN be done. You think of two options, and then do what's worse for you, not to prove a point, but simply because you've chosen to. Doing what's worse for you causes you immense suffering, imo some people can't get around this suffering and so they can't do this, but some people can.

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

Also, and more importantly, DUH, even if the law WAS true, that wouldn't prove determinism, actually now that I think about it, it may disprove it (it would prove that the universe has a strange embedded psychological law that's distinct from determinism and can go against it). Nor would breaking your law, like I've done, disprove determinism. You and the author seem to be confused, neither of you seem to know what determinism means.

Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will — corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME

Terrible advice imo. As a determinist I firmly think that we should continue to blame people, as I said above. We can blame or not blame, and hold people responsible or not hold people responsible under determinism (just not reasonably blame them for free will stuff), these things aren't fixed like the author claims.

If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me.

This has to be the craziest/dumbest/most dangerous claim of the book so far, I stopped somewhere here. Many offenders don't give a flying .. whether or not they'll be blamed, they are concentrating on their crime, so their behaviour won't change. Obviously some offenders will get worse and there will also be new offenders too, because they won't be blamed for their crimes so that makes it easier for them to commit crimes.

Really, how many people commit crimes because they need attention, even if bad attention, so not blaming them will make them feel sad and neglected? Not many I think. If that's how you see offenders then such naivity could be seen as a danger in itself.

Then the author started saying something about blame being in the past and responsibility in the future, but it's just another personal philosophy that time should play a fundamental dicisive role, not an undeniable fact. Time is rather irrelevant here.

You and the author said something about a step-by-step proof or something, so far I've only found a bunch of non-sequituurs, half-truths, some falsehoods.

[Atla]

he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all.

This is nonsense, not an undeniable mathemathical law. Yes 4 billion years of life did roughly one thing: do what is best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what life is basically. But it's still possible to deviate from this. It almost, almost never happens, but it CAN be done. You think of two options, and then do what's worse for you, not to prove a point, but simply because you've chosen to. Doing what's worse for you causes you immense suffering, imo some people can't get around this suffering and so they can't do this, but some people can.

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

Also, and more importantly, DUH, even if the law WAS true, that wouldn't prove determinism, actually now that I think about it, it may disprove it (it would prove that the universe has a strange embedded psychological law that's distinct from determinism and can go against it). Nor would breaking your law, like I've done, disprove determinism. You and the author seem to be confused, neither of you seem to know what determinism means.

Free will would mean you could choose either/or, this or that, A or B, without any compulsion or necessity. Although this states "I chose what I chose", by defnition, you're not understanding the underlying meaning in that it's impossible to choose this if you chose that. IOW, YOU COULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN OTHERWISE. You can't choose A or B equally if there are meaningful differences between A or B. This has major implications

So in the book, determinism = always being forced to do what's better for you (forced by a magical psychological cosmic law), and free will = being able to go against this?

Well that's not what determinism and free will mean. So here we have this old book that goes on and on about free will versus determinism, but never actually touches on the topic because the author never even learned what those words mean. His daughter had a lifetime to spot the mistake, but didn't.

By the way according to this, I have free will. Awesome.

[peacegirl]

You just think the claim is impossible, which is understandable, but you need to contain your skepticism long enough to hear what the author has to say. You haven't done that.

Well I've read most of chapter 1 and half of chapter 2, after barely surviving the prefaces and introductions which were one tedious red flag as expected.

I guess you're here because you want to know why the author's work is nonsense, you know it deep down, so you can put this whole thing to rest.

Completely wrong.

But you can't or don't want to figure it out on your own and others couldn't be bothered to look at it. Well okay let's see some of his tricks that stood out imo (tell me if I misunderstood something he said), I'm sure there are more but this was the most I could handle at once.

Later, I tried to engage a pastor in a discussion about free will, and he responded to me by asking, “If man’s will is not free, then you can’t blame or punish anything he does, is that correct?” And when I answered, “Right,”

What? Determinism only means here that we can't reasonably blame people for making the wrong choices out of free will, because they have no free will. But we can still totally blame them otherwise, and often should imo. Do you know what determinism is? It can't do away with blame in general. Unless you use an odd, outdated definition for determinism that's no longer relevant today.

This is not an outdated definition of determinism. It is reflective of a more accurate definition. It is obvious that everyone is doing what they cannot not do. For example, the robbers rob, and the cops catch them, and the criminal justice system punishes them. This is the world we are living in but there is a better way. Have you not noticed that blame and punishment are only partial deterrents? Look at the mess the world is in.

Therefore, it is imperative that you know, well in advance, that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific, and undeniable

I haven't seen anything really "scientific" in the one and half chapters I've read, which could be because the author didn't learn much about science during his 7 grades at school and just uses the word. Nor have I seen anything complete or undeniable. The author tells us in advance to just trust him and accept the impossible.

He never said to just trust him. Neverrrrr. If you read one and a half chapters, that means you were well into chapter two, correct? Can you tell me what you understood?

Anyway, more importantly, determinism obviously can't be proven mathematically, what would that even mean? I say this as a determinist.

Of course it can be proven to be true mathematically, and he proved it. The term "mathematical" doesn't mean a math equation, although it involves two sides of this human interaction.

he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all.

This is nonsense, not an undeniable mathemathical law. Yes 4 billion years of life did roughly one thing: do what is best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what life is basically. But it's still possible to deviate from this. It almost, almost never happens, but it CAN be done. You think of two options, and then do what's worse for you, not to prove a point, but simply because you've chosen to. Doing what's worse for you causes you immense suffering, imo some people can't get around this suffering and so they can't do this, but some people can.

You are confused here. When someone does something uncharacteristic that looks like he's choosing what is worse for himself, he is actually moving in the direction of greater satisfaction if you would analyze his reasoning. Our choices aren't always the greater of two or more goods but rather the lesser of two or more evils. Sometimes we don't have enough information, which could cause us to suffer the consequences of a choice poorly made. But none of this means we can choose what is worse for us when there is something better within our grasp. But again, the word "better" can be misleading. It might be better for someone to sacrifice his life in order to save another. It doesn't always mean we are moving toward pleasure.

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

This is not MY LAW. Geeze. In your situation, you believed that lending this person money was a nice thing to do, but this person wasn't truthful, so you got burnt. I want to correct you here: You were moving in the direction of what gave you greater satisfaction at that moment because you trusted this person and you wanted to help. You did not make a fool of yourself. You didn't know he wouldn't return the money. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case. This would not occur in the new world.

Also, and more importantly, DUH, even if the law WAS true, that wouldn't prove determinism, actually now that I think about it, it may disprove it (it would prove that the universe has a strange embedded psychological law that's distinct from determinism and can go against it). Nor would breaking your law, like I've done, disprove determinism. You and the author seem to be confused, neither of you seem to know what determinism means.

He understood more than you will ever know. You did not disprove "greater satisfaction" which is why will is not free. You did no such thing. This is an invariable law that cannot be broken, and it's not mine, so stop saying it's my law.

Therefore, we must begin our reasoning where he left off, which means that we are going to accept the magic elixir (call it what you will — corollary, slide rule, or basic principle), THOU SHALL NOT BLAME

Terrible advice imo. As a determinist I firmly think that we should continue to blame people, as I said above. We can blame or not blame, and hold people responsible or not hold people responsible under determinism (just not reasonably blame them for free will stuff), these things aren't fixed like the author claims.

We have to blame people at this time in history until there's a better way. He is showing us a better way, but until this law is applied worldwide, we have no choice but to live in a free will environment of blame and punishment.

If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me.

This has to be the craziest/dumbest/most dangerous claim of the book so far, I stopped somewhere here. Many offenders don't give a flying .. whether or not they'll be blamed, they are concentrating on their crime, so their behaviour won't change. Obviously some offenders will get worse and there will also be new offenders too, because they won't be blamed for their crimes so that makes it easier for them to commit crimes.

It sounds dumb to you now coming from your vantage point of the world we are living in. It's no surprise. But you haven't seen how this new world can become a reality where criminals will not desire to take advantage of others at their expense. I hope you read the economic chapter. It's so interesting.

Really, how many people commit crimes because they need attention, even if bad attention, so not blaming them will make them feel sad and neglected? Not many I think. If that's how you see offenders then such naivity could be seen as a danger in itself.

You are projecting what you think it will be like, but you can't do that until you see the full picture. You didn't even read Chapter Three and only half of Chapter Two. How can you expect to understand how this plays out?

Then the author started saying something about blame being in the past and responsibility in the future, but it's just another personal philosophy that time should play a fundamental dicisive role, not an undeniable fact. Time is rather irrelevant here.

You misunderstood. He said the past is gone, the future isn't here, but you will be responsible for what you do in the present since there will be no way to shift what is your responsibility away from yourself when no one is holding you responsible. That is why if you hurt someone by being negligent in some way, it would be hard to live with this burden of responsibility knowing that you can't come up with excuses since you are already excused, not only by the world, but by the person you harmed.

You and the author said something about a step-by-step proof or something, so far I've only found a bunch of non-sequituurs, half-truths, some falsehoods.

I'm trying to clarify things for you. There is a step-by-step proof but you are prematurely concluding that there is no proof and you stopped reading. He even said the second time around will be much easier. You haven't gotten close to getting through the first time around.

[Atla]

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

No, it break God's law. This is not MY LAW. Geeze. Your reasoning prompted you to believe that lending a person money would not come back to bite you, but it did, so you learned. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case.

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

[accelafine]

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

No, it break God's law. This is not MY LAW. Geeze. Your reasoning prompted you to believe that lending a person money would not come back to bite you, but it did, so you learned. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case.

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

You should form a club with Gary, for men who 'lend' women money in the hope of getting sexual favours. Yes you are making that 'decision', but it's not your brain doing the deciding

[Atla]

No, it break God's law. This is not MY LAW. Geeze. Your reasoning prompted you to believe that lending a person money would not come back to bite you, but it did, so you learned. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case.

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

You should form a club with Gary, for men who 'lend' women money in the hope of getting sexual favours. Yes you are making that 'decision', but it's not your brain doing the deciding

That's how you think, but I don't want sexual favours from her. I find her somewhat repelling, besides she's not my age and has a guy. She was just a colleague, now fired as expected.

[peacegirl]

I did a choice like this a few weeks ago too, I really knew in advance that considering everything it was more bad than good for me, but I did it anyway (and now I probably lost that money I lent as expected, while making a bit of a fool of myself). Looks like your "law" is broken.

No, it break God's law. This is not MY LAW. Geeze. Your reasoning prompted you to believe that lending a person money would not come back to bite you, but it did, so you learned. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case.

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

No Atla, it is not broken. You were still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given the circumstances. You were hoping beyond hope that this time it would be different, and you probably felt pressured. Free will is not being redefined; it's being shown to be nonexistent.

[Atla]

No, it break God's law. This is not MY LAW. Geeze. Your reasoning prompted you to believe that lending a person money would not come back to bite you, but it did, so you learned. Unfortunately, the saying "no good deeds go unpunished" is often the case.

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

No Atla, it is not broken. You were still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given the circumstances. You were hoping beyond hope that this time it would be different, and you probably felt pressured. Free will is not being redefined; it's being shown to be nonexistent.

No I wasn't hoping that this time would be different. Keep trying.

[Atla]

Again, here's a tutorial on how to break GOD's unbreakable law:

1. Think of two options, one better for you and one worse.
2. Choose to do the worse option.
3. Notice how every fiber of your being is revolting at the idea, you experience major suffering, you're getting physically sick and you freeze, you can't do what's worse for you.
4. Find a way to cut through this suffering anyway, if you are able.
5. Do the worse option.

It's how I did it at least. (Luckily, lending a little money may not cause too much suffering.) There is no reason why we do such things, we just do them for no reason. And still nothing to do with determinism or free will.

[peacegirl]

No, I thought that it would be highly likely that I would lose that money. Because she already owed me money that she couldn't repay, and I told her that we reached the limit, and then she asked for more money anyway and I choose to give her some more.

Your law is broken, now what. I told you how to break it. And it has nothing to do with free will or determinism. You don't get to redefine free will and determinism so much, be intellectually honest and give this law some other name.

No Atla, it is not broken. You were still moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given the circumstances. You were hoping beyond hope that this time it would be different, and you probably felt pressured. Free will is not being redefined; it's being shown to be nonexistent.

No I wasn't hoping that this time would be different. Keep trying.

The burden of proof is on me, granted, but I can't prove anything if you refuse to meet me halfway.

[peacegirl]

Again, here's a tutorial on how to break GOD's unbreakable law:

1. Think of two options, one better for you and one worse.
2. Choose to do the worse option.
3. Notice how every fiber of your being is revolting at the idea, you experience major suffering, you're getting physically sick and you freeze, you can't do what's worse for you.
4. Find a way to cut through this suffering anyway, if you are able.
5. Do the worse option.

It's how I did it at least. (Luckily, lending a little money may not cause too much suffering.) There is no reason why we do such things, we just do them for no reason. And still nothing to do with determinism or free will.

It could be you just are an empathetic person, which makes it hard to say no. But when she fails to pay you back this time, you probably won't get taken the next time and you'll stick to your guns. Your example doesn't prove you are moving in the direction of dissatisfaction. You are finding satisfaction in helping her, even though you know it's a risky move. The author gave a similar example. I guess you don't remember.

Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every moment of time?”
“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘It makes no difference’?”
“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice.”

“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied with things that I have done, and at that exact moment, isn’t it obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.”

“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this. Go ahead and try.”

“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow one? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A.

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

[FlashDangerpants]

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction...

• Regardless of how many women you don't marry, the result will always be the same because it is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, the unmarried man must always be a bachelor. This is not an experiment, you cannot experiment with the unfalsifiable.

• Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, man can never choose the thing that he didn't choose, and his every (voluntary) movement, conscious or unconscious, falls within the scope of that tautology.

You cannot test a tautology via "experiment", they are unfalsifiable.

[peacegirl]

Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction...

• Regardless of how many women you don't marry, the result will always be the same because it is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, the unmarried man must always be a bachelor. This is not an experiment, you cannot experiment with the unfalsifiable.

• Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is a tautology. From moment to moment all through life, man can never choose the thing that he didn't choose, and his every (voluntary) movement, conscious or unconscious, falls within the scope of that tautology.

You cannot test a tautology via "experiment", they are unfalsifiable.

You are stuck on this tautology bit. A tautology may be unfalsifiable, but this is much more than a tautology or circular reasoning. You have completely failed (intentionally or not) to recognize the soundness of his observations. Every time we make a move, we are dissatisfied with the position we are in. It's as simple as that, and you don't want to hear it. The empirical test will PROVE that under the changed environmental conditions a person could never desire hurting another without justification.