New Discovery

[Age]

Yes, but an accurate one. How can anyone accurately predict what you are going to have for breakfast, and why would that even matter? The only prediction that matters is knowing that under the changed conditions, crime will die a natural death. That can be predicted with accuracy.

1. you claim that predicting what others will do is unimportant in the scheme of things. And,

Peacegirl: Correct. Having no free will does not mean we have to predict every single movement in the universe to accurately predict that all war and crime will come to an end out of necessity by applying these principles.

2. we can not accurately predict what someone will do. But,

Peacegirl: We can often predict what will occur in the future based on past events, but this does not mean we have to be able to predict every single thing in the universe to know that determinism is true and works in the way he described.

3. we can accurately predict that every one will not hurt any one. Which,

Peacegirl: Yes, because of how conscience works.

4. is an accurate prediction. And,

Peacegirl: Yes, it is the only prediction that can be accurately made.

5. that crime will die a natural death when you stop blaming others for what they do.

Peacegirl: Not until the Great Transition takes place. Stop misinterpreting what he wrote.

However, and to prove this absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'I' will stop blaming "peacegirl" for all of the Wrong that "peacegirl" does. Yet, "peacegirl" will prove, irrefutably, so that 'this', in and of itself, will not stop "peacegirl" from continually hurting others.

Number one: I have hurt no one, and number two, your faulty use of "no blame" shows me how off-base you are. If you don't understand what is written, ask questions rather than putting your ignorance on display.

How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. 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. Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective?

Why do you just not learn how to quote properly, and Correctly, here?

[Age]

Yes, but an accurate one. How can anyone accurately predict what you are going to have for breakfast, and why would that even matter? The only prediction that matters is knowing that under the changed conditions, crime will die a natural death. That can be predicted with accuracy.

1. you claim that predicting what others will do is unimportant in the scheme of things. And,

Peacegirl: Correct. Having no free will does not mean we have to predict every single movement in the universe to accurately predict that all war and crime will come to an end out of necessity by applying these principles.

you have completely and utterly 'missed the mark' and are 'off point', again.

But, you human beings do have 'free will'. you just believe and claim that you do not.

Now, why do you believe and claim that you do not have some thing, which you obviously do?

2. we can not accurately predict what someone will do. But,

Peacegirl: We can often predict what will occur in the future based on past events, but this does not mean we have to be able to predict every single thing in the universe to know that determinism is true and works in the way he described.

So, can you accurately predict what another 'will do'? Or, not?

3. we can accurately predict that every one will not hurt any one. Which,

Peacegirl: Yes, because of how conscience works.

But, 'conscience' has been around since you human beings 'knew' that it was Wrong 'to take' 'that', which is only 'wanted' and 'not needed'.

Which was obviously a very long time ago, to you human beings in the days when this is being written. So, how and why has 'conscience' not been working, hitherto in the days when this is being written?

4. is an accurate prediction. And,

Peacegirl: Yes, it is the only prediction that can be accurately made.

you could not present a more thorough and clearer example of one with 'confirmation bias', from their already very strongly held onto belief, here.

5. that crime will die a natural death when you stop blaming others for what they do.

Peacegirl: Not until the Great Transition takes place. Stop misinterpreting what he wrote.

Note, stop misinterpreting what I write, always.

And, 'I' am just repeating 'your own words', so how, exactly, could 'I' be misinterpreting, here?

However, and to prove this absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'I' will stop blaming "peacegirl" for all of the Wrong that "peacegirl" does. Yet, "peacegirl" will prove, irrefutably, so that 'this', in and of itself, will not stop "peacegirl" from continually hurting others.

Number one: I have hurt no one,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here, 'we' have another example of how 'these people', back when this was being never did any Wrong, and it was, always, 'others' who were doing 'the wrong'.

Can 'you', really, come into a 'philosophy forum' and 'try to' claim that 'you' have never ever hurt absolutely any one, ever, and expect 'us' to actually believe 'this'?

and number two, your faulty use of "no blame" shows me how off-base you are.

How many different 'uses' of 'no blame' are there, exactly?

And, which 'use/s' are the 'non faulty one/s', from the 'faulty one/s', exactly?

If you don't understand what is written, ask questions rather than putting your ignorance on display.

your 'superiority complex' does not go unnoticed.

So, when you say and claim things like, 'when 'blame' is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others', then what have 'I' misinterpreted, here, exactly?

How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

1. Very simply, and very easily. Just do not 'fight back'. How much simpler and easier could it get?

2. What you just asked, here, has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim, 'when blame is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others'.

I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family.

And, 'this' is just because 'you' have not yet evolved and matured enough, as well as you have not yet obtained and gained 'understanding', itself. 'This is', until 'you' understand why 'you' are 'the way' that 'you are', and also understand who 'you are', exactly, 'you' will continue to remain not yet 'mature' enough to not fight and to not retaliate. 'you', obviously, still have quite a lot of learning and growing to do, here.

I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Yet, you, still, personally get 'great satisfaction' 'retaliating against' 'others' for only the very fewest of human beings, only.

LOL Are 'you' absolutely sure that 'you' are a, laughingly, called, "scientist of human conduct"?

Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction.

1. So, for some reason only some of so-called "mankind" is 'compelled' to defend and retaliate, in regards to only a minute few, only.

2. Do 'you' really obtain 'great satisfaction' in defending "myself", and retaliating against 'other human beings', who do what you perceive as 'hurt' to 'you' and some other small number of human beings, only?

Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free.

Okay. So, 'when', exactly, should one start following the proposition, 'Thou shall not blame'?

If one has not yet discovered what you and your "father" believe and claim is true, and even when one has discovered the exact same belief and claim, then when should one begin to what you call 'the corollary', here?

Also, it would be best that you did not fool and deceive "yourself" that your prior propositions have actually already been proved true.

For the obvious reasons that it is way to easy and simple for you to fool and trick "yourselves" to be led away and so far off track, here, in Life.

It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

But, I have tried and tested 'this belief and claim' of yours, here.

I found that 'it' just does not work.

The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

So, why then are continually doing what does not give you greater satisfaction?

If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back.

Only if 'you' are a very immature and non understanding human being.

See, if 'you' actually had any 'real understanding', then 'you' would know, exactly, why 'that one', and 'every one', does what 'they' do, and when 'you' do, then 'you' will not retaliate in such a Truly 'hurtful' and non understanding way, obviously.

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.

What a very stupid conclusion.

If you get so-called 'greater satisfaction' in, what you call, 'socking another back', because 'you' are compelled to, because of 'determinism', itself, then 'others' will 'sock you back', for 'their so-called greater satisfaction', as well. And, obviously, (well according to your logic, here), they did so because they had absolutely no other choice to.

Their so-called 'greater satisfaction' and even 'determinism', itself, 'determined' that 'you' and all of the 'rest of others' would just keep on 'socking each other'.

'you' would not yet be aware but 'you' are actually presenting examples that refute 'your own previous' beliefs and claims, here.

Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

When, and if, you just stop contradicting "your" own 'self', here, then 'you' might come-to-see just how Truly nonsensical and irrational your beliefs and claims are, here.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death.

But, 'forgiving your enemies' is done by just recognizing that 'they' do not know 'why' 'they do' what 'they do'.

Which is a whole different thing from 'not blaming' some one for doing what 'they actually did, and do, do'.

Like all the others, here, in this forum, who are 'trying' so hard to express an actual Truth of things, in Life, they keep completely and utterly failing because of the 'Wrong words', which they just keep on insisting on using.

How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible?

But,

1. As an adult human being 'you' are responsible for what you do.

2. By just 'blaming' some one for doing some thing that 'they did do', which just entails some thing like, 'you did that', then 'this' is completely and utterly different from what your "father" was 'trying to' express, and get across, here.

you, again, appear to need to read your "father's" writings from a Truly open perspective. That way 'you' will not be as closed, and blind, as you obviously are, here.

But they knew what they were doing,

So, why should you stop blaming them for what they actually doing, and for which they even know what they are doing?

If you keep on doing some thing, then you can be what is called 'blamed' for continually 'doing it', obviously.

and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world,

If in 'a religion' it is said and stated, 'God created every thing', then your claim, here, is also Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.

Did those two human beings provide 'the definition' for the word, 'evil', which they were both, personally, using?

If no, then what definition for the 'evil' word are you using, here, exactly?

And, if there is no such thing as 'evil', as you believe and claim there is, then why do you want to stop human beings from hurting one another?

Obviously, 'this' was pre-determined by 'determinism', anyway. And, according to you anyway, this causing 'greater satisfaction' is compelled with you, anyway. Which, again, you have absolutely no choice over, at all, as it and absolutely everything was pre-determined to just happen and occur anyway.

But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them?

Saying some thing like, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Does not sound like one who has, really, forgiven 'those' who trespassed against it.

In fact it sounds like "jesus", also, still had quite some more to learn, comprehend, understand, and know, here.

And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective?

Are you absolutely sure that those two human beings actually 'saw' 'that' in what you call, 'total perspective'?

[peacegirl]

1. you claim that predicting what others will do is unimportant in the scheme of things. And,

Peacegirl: Correct. Having no free will does not mean we have to predict every single movement in the universe to accurately predict that all war and crime will come to an end out of necessity by applying these principles.

you have completely and utterly 'missed the mark' and are 'off point', again.

But, you human beings do have 'free will'. you just believe and claim that you do not.

Now, why do you believe and claim that you do not have some thing, which you obviously do?

2. we can not accurately predict what someone will do. But,

Peacegirl: We can often predict what will occur in the future based on past events, but this does not mean we have to be able to predict every single thing in the universe to know that determinism is true and works in the way he described.

So, can you accurately predict what another 'will do'? Or, not?

3. we can accurately predict that every one will not hurt any one. Which,

Peacegirl: Yes, because of how conscience works.

But, 'conscience' has been around since you human beings 'knew' that it was Wrong 'to take' 'that', which is only 'wanted' and 'not needed'.

Which was obviously a very long time ago, to you human beings in the days when this is being written. So, how and why has 'conscience' not been working, hitherto in the days when this is being written?

4. is an accurate prediction. And,

Peacegirl: Yes, it is the only prediction that can be accurately made.

you could not present a more thorough and clearer example of one with 'confirmation bias', from their already very strongly held onto belief, here.

5. that crime will die a natural death when you stop blaming others for what they do.

Peacegirl: Not until the Great Transition takes place. Stop misinterpreting what he wrote.

Note, stop misinterpreting what I write, always.

And, 'I' am just repeating 'your own words', so how, exactly, could 'I' be misinterpreting, here?

However, and to prove this absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect 'I' will stop blaming "peacegirl" for all of the Wrong that "peacegirl" does. Yet, "peacegirl" will prove, irrefutably, so that 'this', in and of itself, will not stop "peacegirl" from continually hurting others.

Number one: I have hurt no one,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here, 'we' have another example of how 'these people', back when this was being never did any Wrong, and it was, always, 'others' who were doing 'the wrong'.

Can 'you', really, come into a 'philosophy forum' and 'try to' claim that 'you' have never ever hurt absolutely any one, ever, and expect 'us' to actually believe 'this'?

and number two, your faulty use of "no blame" shows me how off-base you are.

How many different 'uses' of 'no blame' are there, exactly?

And, which 'use/s' are the 'non faulty one/s', from the 'faulty one/s', exactly?

If you don't understand what is written, ask questions rather than putting your ignorance on display.

your 'superiority complex' does not go unnoticed.

So, when you say and claim things like, 'when 'blame' is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others', then what have 'I' misinterpreted, here, exactly?

How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

1. Very simply, and very easily. Just do not 'fight back'. How much simpler and easier could it get?

2. What you just asked, here, has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim, 'when blame is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others'.

I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family.

And, 'this' is just because 'you' have not yet evolved and matured enough, as well as you have not yet obtained and gained 'understanding', itself. 'This is', until 'you' understand why 'you' are 'the way' that 'you are', and also understand who 'you are', exactly, 'you' will continue to remain not yet 'mature' enough to not fight and to not retaliate. 'you', obviously, still have quite a lot of learning and growing to do, here.

I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Yet, you, still, personally get 'great satisfaction' 'retaliating against' 'others' for only the very fewest of human beings, only.

LOL Are 'you' absolutely sure that 'you' are a, laughingly, called, "scientist of human conduct"?

Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction.

1. So, for some reason only some of so-called "mankind" is 'compelled' to defend and retaliate, in regards to only a minute few, only.

2. Do 'you' really obtain 'great satisfaction' in defending "myself", and retaliating against 'other human beings', who do what you perceive as 'hurt' to 'you' and some other small number of human beings, only?

Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free.

Okay. So, 'when', exactly, should one start following the proposition, 'Thou shall not blame'?

If one has not yet discovered what you and your "father" believe and claim is true, and even when one has discovered the exact same belief and claim, then when should one begin to what you call 'the corollary', here?

Also, it would be best that you did not fool and deceive "yourself" that your prior propositions have actually already been proved true.

For the obvious reasons that it is way to easy and simple for you to fool and trick "yourselves" to be led away and so far off track, here, in Life.

It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

But, I have tried and tested 'this belief and claim' of yours, here.

I found that 'it' just does not work.

The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

So, why then are continually doing what does not give you greater satisfaction?

If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back.

Only if 'you' are a very immature and non understanding human being.

See, if 'you' actually had any 'real understanding', then 'you' would know, exactly, why 'that one', and 'every one', does what 'they' do, and when 'you' do, then 'you' will not retaliate in such a Truly 'hurtful' and non understanding way, obviously.

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.

What a very stupid conclusion.

If you get so-called 'greater satisfaction' in, what you call, 'socking another back', because 'you' are compelled to, because of 'determinism', itself, then 'others' will 'sock you back', for 'their so-called greater satisfaction', as well. And, obviously, (well according to your logic, here), they did so because they had absolutely no other choice to.

Their so-called 'greater satisfaction' and even 'determinism', itself, 'determined' that 'you' and all of the 'rest of others' would just keep on 'socking each other'.

'you' would not yet be aware but 'you' are actually presenting examples that refute 'your own previous' beliefs and claims, here.

Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

When, and if, you just stop contradicting "your" own 'self', here, then 'you' might come-to-see just how Truly nonsensical and irrational your beliefs and claims are, here.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death.

But, 'forgiving your enemies' is done by just recognizing that 'they' do not know 'why' 'they do' what 'they do'.

Which is a whole different thing from 'not blaming' some one for doing what 'they actually did, and do, do'.

Like all the others, here, in this forum, who are 'trying' so hard to express an actual Truth of things, in Life, they keep completely and utterly failing because of the 'Wrong words', which they just keep on insisting on using.

How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible?

But,

1. As an adult human being 'you' are responsible for what you do.

2. By just 'blaming' some one for doing some thing that 'they did do', which just entails some thing like, 'you did that', then 'this' is completely and utterly different from what your "father" was 'trying to' express, and get across, here.

you, again, appear to need to read your "father's" writings from a Truly open perspective. That way 'you' will not be as closed, and blind, as you obviously are, here.

But they knew what they were doing,

So, why should you stop blaming them for what they actually doing, and for which they even know what they are doing?

If you keep on doing some thing, then you can be what is called 'blamed' for continually 'doing it', obviously.

and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world,

If in 'a religion' it is said and stated, 'God created every thing', then your claim, here, is also Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.

Did those two human beings provide 'the definition' for the word, 'evil', which they were both, personally, using?

If no, then what definition for the 'evil' word are you using, here, exactly?

And, if there is no such thing as 'evil', as you believe and claim there is, then why do you want to stop human beings from hurting one another?

Obviously, 'this' was pre-determined by 'determinism', anyway. And, according to you anyway, this causing 'greater satisfaction' is compelled with you, anyway. Which, again, you have absolutely no choice over, at all, as it and absolutely everything was pre-determined to just happen and occur anyway.

But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them?

Saying some thing like, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Does not sound like one who has, really, forgiven 'those' who trespassed against it.

In fact it sounds like "jesus", also, still had quite some more to learn, comprehend, understand, and know, here.

And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective?

Are you absolutely sure that those two human beings actually 'saw' 'that' in what you call, 'total perspective'?

I'm sorry Age, I just can't discuss this book with you. You have taken so many things out of context in this tome, it is impossible for me to know where to start. By dissecting my words the way you have, you have shown me that you want to argue for argument's sake by making my responses look like non sequiturs. Instead of trying to prove Lessans wrong, in all fairness to him, why not actually read the text the way it was meant to be read? You have not read anything or you would have asked relevant questions, which you have not done, let alone try to understand with a sincere effort to grasp what he's saying. It seems that you just don't like the claim that we have no free will. You are looking like a prosecutor playing word games to confuse the actual defendant and then making the defendant forced to kowtow to your cross-examination. Nope.

[Age]

Peacegirl: Correct. Having no free will does not mean we have to predict every single movement in the universe to accurately predict that all war and crime will come to an end out of necessity by applying these principles.

you have completely and utterly 'missed the mark' and are 'off point', again.

But, you human beings do have 'free will'. you just believe and claim that you do not.

Now, why do you believe and claim that you do not have some thing, which you obviously do?

Peacegirl: We can often predict what will occur in the future based on past events, but this does not mean we have to be able to predict every single thing in the universe to know that determinism is true and works in the way he described.

So, can you accurately predict what another 'will do'? Or, not?

Peacegirl: Yes, because of how conscience works.

But, 'conscience' has been around since you human beings 'knew' that it was Wrong 'to take' 'that', which is only 'wanted' and 'not needed'.

Which was obviously a very long time ago, to you human beings in the days when this is being written. So, how and why has 'conscience' not been working, hitherto in the days when this is being written?

Peacegirl: Yes, it is the only prediction that can be accurately made.

you could not present a more thorough and clearer example of one with 'confirmation bias', from their already very strongly held onto belief, here.

Peacegirl: Not until the Great Transition takes place. Stop misinterpreting what he wrote.

Note, stop misinterpreting what I write, always.

And, 'I' am just repeating 'your own words', so how, exactly, could 'I' be misinterpreting, here?

Number one: I have hurt no one,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here, 'we' have another example of how 'these people', back when this was being never did any Wrong, and it was, always, 'others' who were doing 'the wrong'.

Can 'you', really, come into a 'philosophy forum' and 'try to' claim that 'you' have never ever hurt absolutely any one, ever, and expect 'us' to actually believe 'this'?

and number two, your faulty use of "no blame" shows me how off-base you are.

How many different 'uses' of 'no blame' are there, exactly?

And, which 'use/s' are the 'non faulty one/s', from the 'faulty one/s', exactly?

If you don't understand what is written, ask questions rather than putting your ignorance on display.

your 'superiority complex' does not go unnoticed.

So, when you say and claim things like, 'when 'blame' is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others', then what have 'I' misinterpreted, here, exactly?

How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

1. Very simply, and very easily. Just do not 'fight back'. How much simpler and easier could it get?

2. What you just asked, here, has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim, 'when blame is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others'.

I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family.

And, 'this' is just because 'you' have not yet evolved and matured enough, as well as you have not yet obtained and gained 'understanding', itself. 'This is', until 'you' understand why 'you' are 'the way' that 'you are', and also understand who 'you are', exactly, 'you' will continue to remain not yet 'mature' enough to not fight and to not retaliate. 'you', obviously, still have quite a lot of learning and growing to do, here.

I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Yet, you, still, personally get 'great satisfaction' 'retaliating against' 'others' for only the very fewest of human beings, only.

LOL Are 'you' absolutely sure that 'you' are a, laughingly, called, "scientist of human conduct"?

Most of mankind are compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction.

1. So, for some reason only some of so-called "mankind" is 'compelled' to defend and retaliate, in regards to only a minute few, only.

2. Do 'you' really obtain 'great satisfaction' in defending "myself", and retaliating against 'other human beings', who do what you perceive as 'hurt' to 'you' and some other small number of human beings, only?

Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free.

Okay. So, 'when', exactly, should one start following the proposition, 'Thou shall not blame'?

If one has not yet discovered what you and your "father" believe and claim is true, and even when one has discovered the exact same belief and claim, then when should one begin to what you call 'the corollary', here?

Also, it would be best that you did not fool and deceive "yourself" that your prior propositions have actually already been proved true.

For the obvious reasons that it is way to easy and simple for you to fool and trick "yourselves" to be led away and so far off track, here, in Life.

It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us — something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule.

But, I have tried and tested 'this belief and claim' of yours, here.

I found that 'it' just does not work.

The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

So, why then are continually doing what does not give you greater satisfaction?

If you sock me, I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back.

Only if 'you' are a very immature and non understanding human being.

See, if 'you' actually had any 'real understanding', then 'you' would know, exactly, why 'that one', and 'every one', does what 'they' do, and when 'you' do, then 'you' will not retaliate in such a Truly 'hurtful' and non understanding way, obviously.

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.

What a very stupid conclusion.

If you get so-called 'greater satisfaction' in, what you call, 'socking another back', because 'you' are compelled to, because of 'determinism', itself, then 'others' will 'sock you back', for 'their so-called greater satisfaction', as well. And, obviously, (well according to your logic, here), they did so because they had absolutely no other choice to.

Their so-called 'greater satisfaction' and even 'determinism', itself, 'determined' that 'you' and all of the 'rest of others' would just keep on 'socking each other'.

'you' would not yet be aware but 'you' are actually presenting examples that refute 'your own previous' beliefs and claims, here.

Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

When, and if, you just stop contradicting "your" own 'self', here, then 'you' might come-to-see just how Truly nonsensical and irrational your beliefs and claims are, here.

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death.

But, 'forgiving your enemies' is done by just recognizing that 'they' do not know 'why' 'they do' what 'they do'.

Which is a whole different thing from 'not blaming' some one for doing what 'they actually did, and do, do'.

Like all the others, here, in this forum, who are 'trying' so hard to express an actual Truth of things, in Life, they keep completely and utterly failing because of the 'Wrong words', which they just keep on insisting on using.

How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible?

But,

1. As an adult human being 'you' are responsible for what you do.

2. By just 'blaming' some one for doing some thing that 'they did do', which just entails some thing like, 'you did that', then 'this' is completely and utterly different from what your "father" was 'trying to' express, and get across, here.

you, again, appear to need to read your "father's" writings from a Truly open perspective. That way 'you' will not be as closed, and blind, as you obviously are, here.

But they knew what they were doing,

So, why should you stop blaming them for what they actually doing, and for which they even know what they are doing?

If you keep on doing some thing, then you can be what is called 'blamed' for continually 'doing it', obviously.

and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world,

If in 'a religion' it is said and stated, 'God created every thing', then your claim, here, is also Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.

Did those two human beings provide 'the definition' for the word, 'evil', which they were both, personally, using?

If no, then what definition for the 'evil' word are you using, here, exactly?

And, if there is no such thing as 'evil', as you believe and claim there is, then why do you want to stop human beings from hurting one another?

Obviously, 'this' was pre-determined by 'determinism', anyway. And, according to you anyway, this causing 'greater satisfaction' is compelled with you, anyway. Which, again, you have absolutely no choice over, at all, as it and absolutely everything was pre-determined to just happen and occur anyway.

But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them?

Saying some thing like, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Does not sound like one who has, really, forgiven 'those' who trespassed against it.

In fact it sounds like "jesus", also, still had quite some more to learn, comprehend, understand, and know, here.

And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective?

Are you absolutely sure that those two human beings actually 'saw' 'that' in what you call, 'total perspective'?

I'm sorry Age, I just can't discuss this book with you.

If you believe that you just can not do 'this', then okay.

you appear to not be able to also discuss 'this book' with anyone else, here, either.

You have taken so many things out of context in this tome, it is impossible for me to know where to start.

How about at and with the 'first one', and then just move along from 'there'.

By dissecting my words the way you have, you have shown me that you want to argue for argument's sake by making my responses look like non sequiturs.

And, I can also say and claim, 'By misinterpreting my words the way that you have, you have shown me that you ...', as well.

Instead of trying to prove Lessans wrong, in all fairness to him, why not actually read the text the way it was meant to be read?

Why do you not just read my words in the way that they are meant to be read?

(Some people really do say and claim some of the weirdest and strangest things.)

You have not read anything or you would have asked relevant questions,

If 'this' is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then you will keep believing 'this'.

which you have not done, let alone try to understand with a sincere effort to grasp what he's saying.

Just so you become aware, "peacegirl", if 'you' and 'me' were to have a discussion in a Truly public place, then, from my perspective, it is 'I' who will be seen as actually 'the one' who has grasped more than 'you' what your "father" was actually saying, and actually meaning.

But, of course, you are absolutely free to believe otherwise.

It seems that you just don't like the claim that we have no free will.

Believe whatever you like "peacegirl".

Are you ever going to obtain enough courage to inform 'the readers', here, what the words, 'free will', even mean and are referring to, to you, exactly?

You are looking like a prosecutor playing word games to confuse the actual defendant and then making the defendant forced to kowtow to your cross-examination. Nope.

Again, you are absolutely free to see and believe whatever you like. But, just remember that what you see and/or believe is true, can be completely and utterly False.

[peacegirl]

you have completely and utterly 'missed the mark' and are 'off point', again.

But, you human beings do have 'free will'. you just believe and claim that you do not.

Now, why do you believe and claim that you do not have some thing, which you obviously do?




So, can you accurately predict what another 'will do'? Or, not?


But, 'conscience' has been around since you human beings 'knew' that it was Wrong 'to take' 'that', which is only 'wanted' and 'not needed'.

Which was obviously a very long time ago, to you human beings in the days when this is being written. So, how and why has 'conscience' not been working, hitherto in the days when this is being written?



you could not present a more thorough and clearer example of one with 'confirmation bias', from their already very strongly held onto belief, here.



Note, stop misinterpreting what I write, always.

And, 'I' am just repeating 'your own words', so how, exactly, could 'I' be misinterpreting, here?



LOL
LOL
LOL

Here, 'we' have another example of how 'these people', back when this was being never did any Wrong, and it was, always, 'others' who were doing 'the wrong'.

Can 'you', really, come into a 'philosophy forum' and 'try to' claim that 'you' have never ever hurt absolutely any one, ever, and expect 'us' to actually believe 'this'?



How many different 'uses' of 'no blame' are there, exactly?

And, which 'use/s' are the 'non faulty one/s', from the 'faulty one/s', exactly?



your 'superiority complex' does not go unnoticed.

So, when you say and claim things like, 'when 'blame' is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others', then what have 'I' misinterpreted, here, exactly?


1. Very simply, and very easily. Just do not 'fight back'. How much simpler and easier could it get?

2. What you just asked, here, has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim, 'when blame is stopped being put onto people, then people will just stop hurting others'.



And, 'this' is just because 'you' have not yet evolved and matured enough, as well as you have not yet obtained and gained 'understanding', itself. 'This is', until 'you' understand why 'you' are 'the way' that 'you are', and also understand who 'you are', exactly, 'you' will continue to remain not yet 'mature' enough to not fight and to not retaliate. 'you', obviously, still have quite a lot of learning and growing to do, here.


LOL
LOL
LOL

Yet, you, still, personally get 'great satisfaction' 'retaliating against' 'others' for only the very fewest of human beings, only.

LOL Are 'you' absolutely sure that 'you' are a, laughingly, called, "scientist of human conduct"?



1. So, for some reason only some of so-called "mankind" is 'compelled' to defend and retaliate, in regards to only a minute few, only.

2. Do 'you' really obtain 'great satisfaction' in defending "myself", and retaliating against 'other human beings', who do what you perceive as 'hurt' to 'you' and some other small number of human beings, only?


Okay. So, 'when', exactly, should one start following the proposition, 'Thou shall not blame'?

If one has not yet discovered what you and your "father" believe and claim is true, and even when one has discovered the exact same belief and claim, then when should one begin to what you call 'the corollary', here?

Also, it would be best that you did not fool and deceive "yourself" that your prior propositions have actually already been proved true.

For the obvious reasons that it is way to easy and simple for you to fool and trick "yourselves" to be led away and so far off track, here, in Life.


But, I have tried and tested 'this belief and claim' of yours, here.

I found that 'it' just does not work.


So, why then are continually doing what does not give you greater satisfaction?


Only if 'you' are a very immature and non understanding human being.

See, if 'you' actually had any 'real understanding', then 'you' would know, exactly, why 'that one', and 'every one', does what 'they' do, and when 'you' do, then 'you' will not retaliate in such a Truly 'hurtful' and non understanding way, obviously.



What a very stupid conclusion.

If you get so-called 'greater satisfaction' in, what you call, 'socking another back', because 'you' are compelled to, because of 'determinism', itself, then 'others' will 'sock you back', for 'their so-called greater satisfaction', as well. And, obviously, (well according to your logic, here), they did so because they had absolutely no other choice to.

Their so-called 'greater satisfaction' and even 'determinism', itself, 'determined' that 'you' and all of the 'rest of others' would just keep on 'socking each other'.

'you' would not yet be aware but 'you' are actually presenting examples that refute 'your own previous' beliefs and claims, here.


When, and if, you just stop contradicting "your" own 'self', here, then 'you' might come-to-see just how Truly nonsensical and irrational your beliefs and claims are, here.


But, 'forgiving your enemies' is done by just recognizing that 'they' do not know 'why' 'they do' what 'they do'.

Which is a whole different thing from 'not blaming' some one for doing what 'they actually did, and do, do'.

Like all the others, here, in this forum, who are 'trying' so hard to express an actual Truth of things, in Life, they keep completely and utterly failing because of the 'Wrong words', which they just keep on insisting on using.



But,

1. As an adult human being 'you' are responsible for what you do.

2. By just 'blaming' some one for doing some thing that 'they did do', which just entails some thing like, 'you did that', then 'this' is completely and utterly different from what your "father" was 'trying to' express, and get across, here.

you, again, appear to need to read your "father's" writings from a Truly open perspective. That way 'you' will not be as closed, and blind, as you obviously are, here.


So, why should you stop blaming them for what they actually doing, and for which they even know what they are doing?

If you keep on doing some thing, then you can be what is called 'blamed' for continually 'doing it', obviously.


If in 'a religion' it is said and stated, 'God created every thing', then your claim, here, is also Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.


Did those two human beings provide 'the definition' for the word, 'evil', which they were both, personally, using?

If no, then what definition for the 'evil' word are you using, here, exactly?

And, if there is no such thing as 'evil', as you believe and claim there is, then why do you want to stop human beings from hurting one another?

Obviously, 'this' was pre-determined by 'determinism', anyway. And, according to you anyway, this causing 'greater satisfaction' is compelled with you, anyway. Which, again, you have absolutely no choice over, at all, as it and absolutely everything was pre-determined to just happen and occur anyway.



Saying some thing like, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Does not sound like one who has, really, forgiven 'those' who trespassed against it.

In fact it sounds like "jesus", also, still had quite some more to learn, comprehend, understand, and know, here.


Are you absolutely sure that those two human beings actually 'saw' 'that' in what you call, 'total perspective'?

I'm sorry Age, I just can't discuss this book with you.

If you believe that you just can not do 'this', then okay.

you appear to not be able to also discuss 'this book' with anyone else, here, either.

You have taken so many things out of context in this tome, it is impossible for me to know where to start.

How about at and with the 'first one', and then just move along from 'there'.

By dissecting my words the way you have, you have shown me that you want to argue for argument's sake by making my responses look like non sequiturs.

And, I can also say and claim, 'By misinterpreting my words the way that you have, you have shown me that you ...', as well.

Instead of trying to prove Lessans wrong, in all fairness to him, why not actually read the text the way it was meant to be read?

Why do you not just read my words in the way that they are meant to be read?

(Some people really do say and claim some of the weirdest and strangest things.)

You have not read anything or you would have asked relevant questions,

If 'this' is what you want to believe is absolutely true, then you will keep believing 'this'.

which you have not done, let alone try to understand with a sincere effort to grasp what he's saying.

Just so you become aware, "peacegirl", if 'you' and 'me' were to have a discussion in a Truly public place, then, from my perspective, it is 'I' who will be seen as actually 'the one' who has grasped more than 'you' what your "father" was actually saying, and actually meaning.

But, of course, you are absolutely free to believe otherwise.

It seems that you just don't like the claim that we have no free will.

Believe whatever you like "peacegirl".

Are you ever going to obtain enough courage to inform 'the readers', here, what the words, 'free will', even mean and are referring to, to you, exactly?

You are looking like a prosecutor playing word games to confuse the actual defendant and then making the defendant forced to kowtow to your cross-examination. Nope.

Again, you are absolutely free to see and believe whatever you like. But, just remember that what you see and/or believe is true, can be completely and utterly False.

You're right Age. You won.

[Atla]

Age wins yet another bowl of pill-shaped candy. That's our local champ for ya.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl wrote:



-- a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible?

The more a man reasons the more his 'will' is free. Jesus on the cross was reasoning correctly despite his suffering. True freedom is aligning oneself as much as one can with truth ; reason is our guide to truth

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl wrote:

-- a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible?

The more a man reasons the more his 'will' is free. Jesus on the cross was reasoning correctly despite his suffering. True freedom is aligning oneself as much as one can with truth ; reason is our guide to truth

It is true that reason is our guide to truth, but you are talking about a different kind of freedom than what "free will" means in this debate. If people can't define words where there is a common denominator, it's no wonder progress will never be made. People just switch the definition and voila, we are talking at each other, not to each other

The dictionary defines free will as the power of self-determination, regarded as a special faculty that enables one to choose good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than what he does if he wants to and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception.

[Phil8659]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

I do not know who you are, but you have got to be delusional. A mind has one, and only one job to do, and only one means of doing it, so how can one "discover" i.e., perceptibly know, an intelligible piece of illiteracy called "determinism" What the hell is that, and why waste my time on just more gibberish that is not the least bit entertaining?

Where is your factually correct grammar book?

[peacegirl]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

I do not know who you are, but you have got to be delusional.

Oh really?

A mind has one, and only one job to do, and only one means of doing it, so how can one "discover" i.e., perceptibly know, an intelligible piece of illiteracy called "determinism" What the hell is that, and why waste my time on just more gibberish that is not the least bit entertaining?

What are you referring to Phil? I don't know who you are either, and for you to barge in here with such aggression is not going to get you far. Sorry.

[Phil8659]

I'm introducing a book that you may be interested in. It is based on a discovery that lies behind the door of determinism. But please don't jump to a premature conclusion that if will is not free, we are robots, which is why many people dislike this position. I hope that people stick with me. Here are the first three chapters. This should give you an idea of whether this book is for you or not.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

I do not know who you are, but you have got to be delusional.

Oh really?

A mind has one, and only one job to do, and only one means of doing it, so how can one "discover" i.e., perceptibly know, an intelligible piece of illiteracy called "determinism" What the hell is that, and why waste my time on just more gibberish that is not the least bit entertaining?

What are you referring to Phil? I don't know who you are either, and for you to barge in here with such aggression is not going to get you far. Sorry.

Too late for that, view my work on the Internet Archive, I have gone farther than mankind has done. You do not know me, because you do not know which topics are historically important to mankind. You are only familiar with what they teach in schools around the world, gibberish. Who else has ever shown anyone how to do all of mathematics using a simple pencil, straightedge and compass, which is even in the metaphors of the Bible, as well as in Plato. Binary information processing always produces a binary result, claiming that one can figure out something in one grammar and not another is only an admission of illiteracy.

Anyone with half a wit can figure out that since all information processing is binary, no one can discover any new way to reason unless they were mentally defective.

[peacegirl]

I do not know who you are, but you have got to be delusional.

Oh really?

A mind has one, and only one job to do, and only one means of doing it, so how can one "discover" i.e., perceptibly know, an intelligible piece of illiteracy called "determinism" What the hell is that, and why waste my time on just more gibberish that is not the least bit entertaining?

What are you referring to Phil? I don't know who you are either, and for you to barge in here with such aggression is not going to get you far. Sorry.

Too late for that, view my work on the Internet Archive, I have gone farther than mankind has done. You do not know me, because you do not know which topics are historically important to mankind. You are only familiar with what they teach in schools around the world, gibberish. Who else has ever shown anyone how to do all of mathematics using a simple pencil, straightedge and compass, which is even in the metaphors of the Bible, as well as in Plato. Binary information processing always produces a binary result, claiming that one can figure out something in one grammar and not another is only an admission of illiteracy.

My only question: What has your work done to bring peace to our world? That’s what this thread is about and all I’m interested in.

[Phil8659]

Oh really?



What are you referring to Phil? I don't know who you are either, and for you to barge in here with such aggression is not going to get you far. Sorry.

Too late for that, view my work on the Internet Archive, I have gone farther than mankind has done. You do not know me, because you do not know which topics are historically important to mankind. You are only familiar with what they teach in schools around the world, gibberish. Who else has ever shown anyone how to do all of mathematics using a simple pencil, straightedge and compass, which is even in the metaphors of the Bible, as well as in Plato. Binary information processing always produces a binary result, claiming that one can figure out something in one grammar and not another is only an admission of illiteracy.

My only question: What has your work done to bring peace to our world? That’s what this thread is about and all I’m interested in.

There you go again with your gibberish. Where did I ever intimate that literacy, the art of reasoning, was some animated pooka? You are constantly displaying your primitive sociopathic personality. Who but a merchant would even think of copywriting work which is aimed at human improvement, and who but an idiot thinks that mankind is not wholly responsible for using their resources?
You are a mental wasteland.

Look at your screen name, ego centric. A mind is an evolving life support system, it is not an individual with delusions of grandeur.

No one teaches anybody anything, we can only add to the environment making it possible for people to change themselves. Like I said, we learn how to reshape the environment, either physically or intelligibly, according to our own ability.

Only a fool expects someone to make someone else this or that.

[peacegirl]

Too late for that, view my work on the Internet Archive, I have gone farther than mankind has done. You do not know me, because you do not know which topics are historically important to mankind. You are only familiar with what they teach in schools around the world, gibberish. Who else has ever shown anyone how to do all of mathematics using a simple pencil, straightedge and compass, which is even in the metaphors of the Bible, as well as in Plato. Binary information processing always produces a binary result, claiming that one can figure out something in one grammar and not another is only an admission of illiteracy.

My only question: What has your work done to bring peace to our world? That’s what this thread is about and all I’m interested in.

There you go again with your gibberish. Where did I ever intimate that literacy, the art of reasoning, was some animated pooka? You are constantly displaying your primitive sociopathic personality. Who but a merchant would even think of copywriting work which is aimed at human improvement, and who but an idiot thinks that mankind is not wholly responsible for using their resources?
You are a mental wasteland.

Look at your screen name, ego centric. A mind is an evolving life support system, it is not an individual with delusions of grandeur.

No one teaches anybody anything, we can only add to the environment making it possible for people to change themselves. Like I said, we learn how to reshape the environment, either physically or intelligibly, according to our own ability.

Only a fool expects someone to make someone else this or that.

You don’t impress me. I have no desire to defend myself for your approval!

[Phil8659]

My only question: What has your work done to bring peace to our world? That’s what this thread is about and all I’m interested in.

There you go again with your gibberish. Where did I ever intimate that literacy, the art of reasoning, was some animated pooka? You are constantly displaying your primitive sociopathic personality. Who but a merchant would even think of copywriting work which is aimed at human improvement, and who but an idiot thinks that mankind is not wholly responsible for using their resources?
You are a mental wasteland.

Look at your screen name, ego centric. A mind is an evolving life support system, it is not an individual with delusions of grandeur.

No one teaches anybody anything, we can only add to the environment making it possible for people to change themselves. Like I said, we learn how to reshape the environment, either physically or intelligibly, according to our own ability.

Only a fool expects someone to make someone else this or that.

You don’t impress me. I have no desire to defend myself for your approval!

There you go again with your gibberish. I do not give a flying fuck about impressing a dim wit. I only say, that only a dim wit actually believes that the grammar is to be used for an imagined personal gain. I like your emogi, I was once five years old myself. I already know that actual study and hard work is not your forte.