New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Impossible for you and your father. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

What a dumb answer. This has nothing to do with my father or me. No one is trying to trick you. The entire point of contemplation is to decide which option is preferable, or you wouldn't have this attribute.

Everything to do with you and your father since you two made up this nonsensical law.

It's an invariable law and he didn't make it up. Where is it nonsensical? I don't know why this is so disturbing to you. You have not shown me how you can move in the direction of what offers you less satisfaction when an option that offers you more satisfaction is available after pondering the pros and cons of each choice. We are often dissatisfied with the choices we've been given. In fact, many of our choices are made as the lesser of two or more evils because we haven't been presented with anything better, but this has nothing to do with the direction we are compelled to move from the minute we are born to the minute we die.

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.

[Atla]

What a dumb answer. This has nothing to do with my father or me. No one is trying to trick you. The entire point of contemplation is to decide which option is preferable, or you wouldn't have this attribute.

Everything to do with you and your father since you two made up this nonsensical law.

It's an invariable law and he didn't make it up. Where is it nonsensical? I don't know why this is so disturbing to you. You have not shown me how a person can move in the direction of what offers him less satisfaction when an option that offers him greater satisfaction is available after pondering the pros and cons of each choice. We are often dissatisfied with the choices we've been given. In fact, many of our choices are made as the lesser of two or more evils because at any particular moment we haven't been presented with anything better, but this has nothing to do with the direction we are compelled to move from the minute we are born to the minute we die.

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.

Yes I've shown it, case closed.

[peacegirl]

Everything to do with you and your father since you two made up this nonsensical law.

It's an invariable law and he didn't make it up. Where is it nonsensical? I don't know why this is so disturbing to you. You have not shown me how a person can move in the direction of what offers him less satisfaction when an option that offers him greater satisfaction is available after pondering the pros and cons of each choice. We are often dissatisfied with the choices we've been given. In fact, many of our choices are made as the lesser of two or more evils because at any particular moment we haven't been presented with anything better, but this has nothing to do with the direction we are compelled to move from the minute we are born to the minute we die.

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.

Yes I've shown it, case closed.

It's far from closed Atla. Are you talking about the loan you gave? It gave you greater satisfaction to offer it, based on what you were thinking at the time. It turned out you were sorry to have made that choice, but at the time, you got more satisfaction out of lending her the money than refusing her. This doesn't mean that you will continue to do the same thing if a similar situation presents itself. We are constantly learning from our past experiences and making changes based on new information.

[Atla]

It's an invariable law and he didn't make it up. Where is it nonsensical? I don't know why this is so disturbing to you. You have not shown me how a person can move in the direction of what offers him less satisfaction when an option that offers him greater satisfaction is available after pondering the pros and cons of each choice. We are often dissatisfied with the choices we've been given. In fact, many of our choices are made as the lesser of two or more evils because at any particular moment we haven't been presented with anything better, but this has nothing to do with the direction we are compelled to move from the minute we are born to the minute we die.

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.

Yes I've shown it, case closed.

It's far from closed Atla. Are you talking about the loan you gave? It gave you greater satisfaction to offer it, based on what you were thinking at the time. It turned out you were sorry to have made that choice, but at the time, you got more satisfaction out of lending her the money than refusing her. This doesn't mean that you will continue to do the same thing if a similar situation presents itself. We are constantly learning from our past experiences and making changes based on new information.

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Poor peacegirl. Her only workable option against Atla is to take Blackburn's lead and point out that we are definitionally - tautologically and a priori indeed - required to view his choice as the one which conformed with the sum of his mental states at the time (beliefs, desires etc) and that the alternative is not to view it as any sort of rational choice at all, but simply a random moment of brain-fart, temporary possession by the devil, or the beginnings of a mental illness or something like that.

But she can't do that, so she has to stick to trying to persuade him that there's just some other way he ought to think about his previous choice just because her dad said so. Yeesh.

[peacegirl]

Yes I've shown it, case closed.

It's far from closed Atla. Are you talking about the loan you gave? It gave you greater satisfaction to offer it, based on what you were thinking at the time. It turned out you were sorry to have made that choice, but at the time, you got more satisfaction out of lending her the money than refusing her. This doesn't mean that you will continue to do the same thing if a similar situation presents itself. We are constantly learning from our past experiences and making changes based on new information.

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

Of course it did, but you didn't know it would cause a greater dissatisfaction at the time, or you wouldn't have made that choice. We often make choices based on limited information. Once again, this does not negate this invariable law.

[Atla]

It's far from closed Atla. Are you talking about the loan you gave? It gave you greater satisfaction to offer it, based on what you were thinking at the time. It turned out you were sorry to have made that choice, but at the time, you got more satisfaction out of lending her the money than refusing her. This doesn't mean that you will continue to do the same thing if a similar situation presents itself. We are constantly learning from our past experiences and making changes based on new information.

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

Of course it did, but you didn't know it would cause a greater dissatisfaction at the time, or you wouldn't have made that choice. We often make choices based on limited information. Once again, this does not negate this invariable law.

But I told you that I knew at the time that this would case the greater dissatisfaction. As FDP said, it wasn't a rational choice, there is no "why" I did it, I can't tell you why I did it. But I've somehow chosen to do it anyway.

According to you, this shows that I have free will - I completely disagree.

[peacegirl]

Yes I've shown it, case closed.

It's far from closed Atla. Are you talking about the loan you gave? It gave you greater satisfaction to offer it, based on what you were thinking at the time. It turned out you were sorry to have made that choice, but at the time, you got more satisfaction out of lending her the money than refusing her. This doesn't mean that you will continue to do the same thing if a similar situation presents itself. We are constantly learning from our past experiences and making changes based on new information.

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

You're not understanding for some reason. You suffered through it afterwards, but you didn't know this would happen beforehand or you would not have made it.

[peacegirl]

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

Of course it did, but you didn't know it would cause a greater dissatisfaction at the time, or you wouldn't have made that choice. We often make choices based on limited information. Once again, this does not negate this invariable law.

But I told you that I knew at the time that this would case the greater dissatisfaction. As FDP said, it wasn't a rational choice, there is no "why" I did it, I can't tell you why I did it. But I've somehow chosen to do it anyway.

According to you, this shows that I have free will - I completely disagree.

You don't always know the reason why and you don't always think about it. In this case, you just acted on your desire to help her, so that's what you did. The point is you made a choice which rendered any other choice that you were considering at that moment, an impossibility. You could not have done otherwise, which is why we don't have free will. Having a free choice is a realistic mirage.

[peacegirl]

Poor peacegirl. Her only workable option against Atla is to take Blackburn's lead and point out that we are definitionally - tautologically and a priori indeed - required to view his choice as the one which conformed with the sum of his mental states at the time (beliefs, desires etc) and that the alternative is not to view it as any sort of rational choice at all, but simply a random moment of brain-fart, temporary possession by the devil, or the beginnings of a mental illness or something like that.

I don't think that any alternative choice is irrational. It's about gathering information, and choosing what you believe is the best choice based on that information, after weighing the advantages or disadvantages of each potential choice. That's how most of us come to the decisions we make, especially if they are important ones. Deciding what we are going to eat for breakfast isn't one of them.

But she can't do that, so she has to stick to trying to persuade him that there's just some other way he ought to think about his previous choice just because her dad said so. Yeesh.

Please stop dismissing anything I say just because he happened to be my father. That is so ignorant.

[peacegirl]

No I didn't. As I explained to you, I made a choice which caused me the bigger dissatisfaction by simply suffering through it.

Of course it did, but you didn't know it would cause a greater dissatisfaction at the time, or you wouldn't have made that choice. We often make choices based on limited information. Once again, this does not negate this invariable law.

But I told you that I knew at the time that this would cause the greater dissatisfaction. As FDP said, it wasn't a rational choice, there is no "why" I did it, I can't tell you why I did it. But I've somehow chosen to do it anyway.

Even if you didn't think about it rationally, you still chose it because it gave you more satisfaction than not lending her the money, or you wouldn't have. If you knew in advance that you would never get your money back, you may have refused this transaction.

According to you, this shows that I have free will - I completely disagree.

No, it shows the opposite.

[Atla]

...

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

[accelafine]

...

Again, I consciously broke your law. Then there are people like accelafine who are forced to go against their own satisfaction all the time (making her miserable), although not by choice. She's on autopilot because of her BPD, most people have emotion control but she is fully driven by her own emotional impulses and can't do anything about it. It's like sitting in a self-driving car where you have no controls, and it sometimes takes you into bad traffic which is bad for you but you can't do anything about it.

Now that we've thrown out the magical cosmic law, what remains is the most banal observation: life does what life does, which is living, which typically involves doing what's best for the organism/colony/tribe. That's what makes them satisfied.

Now unlike you, I'm an actual determinist, so we could even skip this whole part and grant that determinism is the case, and proceed to the really crazy part where you somehow banish all evil and save the world by reinterpreting blame.

Says the man who apparently can't control himself when women ask him for money (and it's purely altruistic too ).

[accelafine]

Them uppity broads need to be kept in their place. Of course they must all have a certifiable mental illness eg 'BPB' which certain males on here love to 'diagnose' me with. Not sure if the 'B' stands for 'borderline' or 'bi'. Is there a difference? It used to be known as 'female hysteria', when 'uppity broads' could be locked away in lunatic asylums by their husbands to 'shut them up'. Aaah. The good old days. Before that it was the 'Scold's bridle', a torture device that women who were too 'uppity' were forced to wear.
Of course, some things never change...

[Age]

It's very difficult if you don't understand the two-sided equation, which is the core of this discovery. But I will give you the very beginning of Chapter Six. I don't want to be accused of going against any rules. Actually, I just reduced the price of the ebook to 99 cents on Amazon. I don't even think people will have to give up their cup of morning joe at this price. You will need to put in the search bar the author's name: Seymour Lessans. The title isn't showing up and I have to get it corrected somehow.

CHAPTER SIX

THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the possibility of war and crime but completely changes the entire economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the two-sided equation; otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on in, each move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game; consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be avoided, nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is mathematically impossible to stop the development of something everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned, desire what I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the solution when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to reduce the differences between people to a common denominator that satisfies the whole human race. God shows no partiality, and since I have been sent here on a mission by God Himself, everybody to me is equal regardless of his color, race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else you care to throw in. Consequently, the United States, though I live here, is no more a problem to me than Russia or China. Besides, nobody asked to be born, and once it is understood that man’s will is not free, and what this means, how is it possible to blame an individual for anything when both sides of this human equation understand the principles? This is a discovery that no one ever knew about; therefore, the experts in every field are also inadequately prepared to judge its ability to accomplish what was never before possible: the prevention of war and crime. At this juncture my friend and I continued our dialogue.

“Something puzzles me very much because it seems under certain conditions this principle can have no effect. If man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and the conditions of the environment cause him as a solution to his particular problem to prefer the lesser of two evils, how is it possible to remove the evil when his choice, no matter what he selects is still evil? Self-preservation is the first law of nature and if he can’t satisfy his needs without hurting others, the knowledge that they will never blame him for this hurt to them can never prevent him from moving in this direction because he has no choice.”

How long ago was this even written?

It appears very old and very out of date.

He discovered a law of our nature, which time does not change, although the examples given may be somewhat outdated, but that doesn't have anything to do with the law itself and how it is applied.

1. What is the difference between 'our nature', and, just 'nature', itself?

2. A 'law of our nature', which 'that one' supposedly 'discovered', and which is totally outdated, does not align with the 'current' and actual 'law of nature', itself. So, why do you promote an 'outdated law', when the 'actual and current law' is far, far superior to that outdated law'?

3. To say some thing like, 'time does not change' (a supposed discovered law of 'our' nature), shows and proves that you are still not yet aware of what the word 'time' is in relation to, exactly.

4. If the 'law', itself, is outdated, then why continue in 'trying to' claim that 'that law', itself, is important, and are 'trying to' explain how to apply that so-called 'law'?

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is referring to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to demonstrate how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier.

1. When you write, 'in 25 years', then when is this '25 years' from, exactly?

2. Why will it only be the 'men' who are, supposedly, so-called 'delivered from all evil'?

3. A 'thorough investigation' into 'what', exactly? And, do 'we' have to wait until every one, or every 'man', has taken a 'thorough investigation' before the 25 years begins? Also, how do 'we' know when a so-called 'thorough investigation' has actually been completed?

Is it when one agrees, absolutely, with what you, and/or the writer, are saying and claiming, here?

4. If this so-called 'discovery' remains, supposedly, 'in obscurity' how come it is, allegedly, not obscure, to you? Also, why do you not just reveal this, so-called 'discovery', itself? And, could what you call 'a discovery' not be that much of 'a discovery' at all, and/or just not be as important are you believe it is? Or, is 'this' not even a possibility, to you?

5. Why do you keep using words like, 'the discovery', as doing so keeps 'it' 'a mystery'? Why not just say what the so-called 'discovery' is, exactly, and then just use 'those words', only, which just say what 'the discovery' is, exactly?

6. What, exactly, is 'the knowledge', itself, which, supposedly, could not be 'timelier'?

7. By the way, is it possible that the words and term, 'free will', are just referring to, 'The ability to choose', which obviously human beings have, which would then mean that human beings do, actually, have 'free will'. Which, by the way, would mean that they are, actually, responsibility for their Wrong doings, but 'the reasons' why all adult human beings do Wong is some thing that can not be so-called 'blamed' for anyway? But, because every adult human being is, still, responsible for what they do, Right or Wrong, because they do, and did, have 'The ability to choose', then 'this' will bring about the Truly peaceful and harmonious world', for every one, as One, quicker, simpler, and easier, than some so-claimed 'discovery' that you human beings do not have 'free will'?

“You are 100% correct because he is already being hurt by the environment and under such conditions he is justified to retaliate.”

What are the words, 'you are 100% correct', even in relation to, exactly?

In relation to the person's question that the economic system that if no choice is adequate in protecting us from the fear of losing our ability to survive, then this would justify whatever means necessary to guarantee our survival (or self-preservation, which is the first law of nature), even if it resulted in a hurt to others.

But, money and economics has absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings survival. And, any talk of money and/or economics in relation to survival and/or living in peace and harmony together, as One, only shows how far 'backwards' and indoctrinated those human beings had become.

Is the writer asking questions, and then answering back to "itself"?

And, in what 'world' could it be justified for a human being to hurt human beings just because the environment is, supposedly, 'hurting' a human being?

The environment being the conditions a person is living in.

Okay, but 'this' was already understood, and in absolutely no way answers the 'actual questions' asked, here.

If someone is living in an environment where there is no clean water the water, he will be at risk for a serious illness in comparison to someone who lives in an environment where there IS clean water; and the person who needs clean water will steal your clean water if he can.

1. Any talk of 'stealing' clean water just shows and proves how much of 'your thinking' revolves around 'money' and/or 'greed', itself.

2. All human beings need clean water. So, why say 'the person who needs clean water'? Can you name to 'us' 'a person' who does not need clean water?

If yes, then will you name it or them?

That is what is meant by "the environment is hurting a human being."

So, because it is human beings, only, who pollute water, and thus who make 'clean water' not clean, then is 'what' you mean by 'the environment' just 'that', which is caused by you human beings, only, correct?

Many things in our environment are suboptimal and until those things are removed, the basic principle can have no effect because people will not be choosing a good (not being hurt) over an evil (being hurt), but the lesser of two evils (stealing, which is the lesser evil than living with the potential of dying from water borne disease. Do you actually think he has a free choice to do what he thinks will end with his demise?) which will justify whatever it takes to survive.

There is quite a bit to 'look at', and 'discuss', here. But, firstly, why did you not answer the 'two questions' that I posed, and asked you above, here?

I asked you,

Is the writer asking questions, and then answering back to "itself"?

And, in what 'world' could it be justified for a human being to hurt human beings just because the environment is, supposedly, 'hurting' a human being?

See, if 'the writer' is asking "itself" very specific questions, and then just answering them, then this can be very, very misleading, and those who are not Truly open can be fooled, and deceived, very, very easily, and simply.

And, 'I' asked 'you', ' 'in what world' could ... '? I never asked 'you' what you meant by 'environment'.

Anyway, the only thing in 'the environment', like for example dirty water and dirty air is because of what you adult human beings are doing, again because of your 'selfishness' and 'greed'. So, quite obviously, only when you adult human beings stop being 'selfish' and 'greedy' that this is when 'the environment' will become 'optimal', once more. Just like it used to be like.

you say and claim, 'until those things, which you call, 'suboptimal', in 'our environment' are removed', and then go off on some other tangent. However,

1. The only things in 'the environment', which are so-called 'suboptimal', or 'not optimal', is the Wrong behavior done by you adult human beings.

2. What do you mean by, 'our environment'? Who and/or what is the 'our' word in relation to, exactly, and how does 'that environment' differ from 'the environment', exactly?

3. What are your words, 'the basic principle', in relation to, exactly?

4. you talk about people 'choosing' a 'good' over a so-called 'evil', but if as you claim there is no 'free will', that is, 'the ability to choose', then how could people even 'choose' 'good' over some so-called 'evil', anyway?

5. Why do you believe that 'me' doing what causes 'you' or 'another' to 'die' can be justified?

“This is the only thing that had me puzzled; otherwise, your reasoning is flawless.”

“It is important to understand that in order to solve a problem, even with our basic principle, we must know what we are faced with and in the economic world there are three aspects of hurt. The first is not being able to fulfill our basic needs. The second is the inability to maintain the standard of living that was developed. And the last is to be denied an opportunity, if desired, to improve one’s standard of living.”

Does living a sheltered life have anything to do with not being able to eat?

Lol if one really believes that these are 'hurts', then that one has lived a very sheltered life. Which explains why it has a very narrowed and small view of things, here.

What?

What what?

Imagine living under horrible conditions and told that if you believe that these conditions are 'hurts", that you are living a sheltered life.

Why do you want me to imagine some thing that no one, here, has even alluded to nor mentioned, let alone talked about nor said?

What a slap in the face of those who are living impoverished lives, and you have the gall to tell them it's their fault.

you could not have gotten more 'off track', here, even if you wanted to and were attempting to. Why do you believe your assumptions to be absolutely true? Have you ever considered seeking out clarification first, before assuming and/or believing things?

What 'we' have, here, is another prime example of one who concludes things on their own assumptions, even when their own assumptions do not align with what is actually True in any way, shape, nor form.

Before I demonstrate how this hurt in the economic world is removed, it is necessary to remind you of this key fact: Man’s will is not free because he never has a choice, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the normal compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer the one that gives him greater satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil.

Why do you believe, believe, that "men" are not free to choose to whether to do what is actually Right, in Life, from what is actually Wrong, in Life?

Do you believe that "women" are able to choose to do what they want or do not want to?

If absolutely any one believes what is claimed, here, then allow 'us' to have a Truly open and honest discussion, so that the readers, here, can bear witness to what will actually come to light.

What do you think I've been trying to do Age, but you can't expect people to understand what they have not even read?

What 'I' know 'you' are 'trying to' do, here, is to express 'all of your views and beliefs' as though they are what are irrefutably true and right, in Life.

The natural law implicit in the two-sided equation cannot prevent man from finding greater satisfaction in hurting others when not to do this makes matters worse for himself as would be the case if he were forced, beyond his control, to lose his source of income and be placed in a position where he could not meet his living expenses or acquire the necessaries of life.

It is like the writer of these words was not yet aware that the saying, 'the love of money is the root of all evil', was based upon a truth.

No Age, it has nothing to do with money but what money represents. Take a broader view.

From what I have seen so far, from your writings, is that 'this discovery', which will, supposedly, create 'a new and better world', which will, still, revolve around 'money', and/or 'the love of money'. Which is said to be, 'The root of all evil'.

So, what you are, essentially, doing, here, is 'trying to' claim that 'some discovery' that will lead to the fall of ALL evil, revolves around the talking 'about money' as though 'money' is some necessary part of life, and living.

Now, what does 'money', itself, represent, to you, exactly?

Only when one believes absurd and obviously False things like, 'we need money to live', then they could be so-called 'hurt' by a lose of income.

Wouldn't you, if you tried but could not find the job or any avenue that could help you survive?

Why are 'you' quoting 'me', here, as saying some thing that I did not, and never would?

Of course, and that sometimes involves taking from someone else. You don't seem to understand why people feel they have no other choice but to take from others through stealing, robbing, lying, or anything else that can increase their chances of not only survival but living in comfort

.

Again, you have the most sheltered, narrowed, smallest, and/or closed view and perspective of things, here.

What? You're not making sense.

Okay, but is 'this', to you, to some, or to everyone?

Also, do you believe that 'you' are making sense, here?