New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

[quote=peacegirl post_id=790206 time=1758832694 user_id=3898]
Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb.
[/quote]
Whatever. I suppose your latest whine presents an oppottunity to test an hypothesis again, so let's give it a go.

The problem I am concerned with here - and that makes it the only thing I am testing in this post - is that I found it seemingly impossible to dumb down any basic philosophical point sufficiently for you to understand. It's impossible for some reason to show you how arguments that lack certain structures don't prove things. As Atla has noted there are competing explanations for this, and as you have noted, one of those is that maybe you are just kind of dumb.

We can plausibly test whether you are tactically obtuse when confronted with counterarguments or just inherently stupid by trying to dumb down some other information until we get it into your thick skull, and maybe shed some light on that other matter as we do so. So... here is a simplified guide to opening and closing tags when using the internet for communication purposes... let's see if we can find a way to explain the fucking simple skill of quoting stuff.

The only thing you really need to get is that whenever you open a tag such as a quote or italicising big blocks of text, that open tag isn't paired to a closer, it uses the first compatible closing tag that arrives. Failing to understand this is why all your posts are a confusing mess composed by a worryingly stupid person.

If we open tags thus
[quote="Level 1"]Text goes here[/quote] ..... The closing /quote tag applies to the level 1 tag not because they were created as a pair, but because each opening tag greedily consumes the first closing tag it encounters

If we open up two levels of tags, the second opening tag consumes not the second closing tag, but the first tag it meets, because they are not cooperating, they greedily consume the first thing they come to.

So... with [quote="Level 1"]Quoting text[quote="Level 2"]Quoted text[/quote][/quote] ... you notice that the opening tags are specific, but the closing tags are not. The way this expands would be

[quote="Level 1"]
Quoting text
....[quote="Level 2"]
....Quoted text
....[/quote]
[/quote]

So that is all you have to do to stop ruining all your quotes. Just learn to care a little bit about how other people are able to read your posts, have enough decency to accept responsibility for your end of that instead of whining, and know where the /quote to close each quote is. Also, maybe use the preview button if in doubt.

Beyond that you have one other problem. You take the initial quote opening tag that is auto generated and includes the user_id and time and post_id of the post you are quoiting and you leave that entirely unclosed, which is how you are consistently attributing almost everything you write at the moment to Belinda. I recommended you to just delete that tag weeks ago. If you acn't do that, then just close it immediately instead. Most of your posts don't have enough closing tags for the opening tags because you think that opening a new quote tage to say [quote=OtherPerson] somehow replaces the tag you are moronically indifferent to.

There, I have surely made it impossible for you to fail at basic quoting tasks now unless you are a moron. Once you have managed to quote with the proficiency of a basic average person, we may argue about why you are not able to reason at the level of a basic average person, but at least we will have a relevant data point.

[peacegirl]

Everyone has the right to conscience , opinions, and ideas. And I have a right to object to consciences, opinions, or ideas and to say why I object.



"That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. " I approve of your recognising that there are moral grey areas.
Concerning animal welfare at least IMO your heart is in the right place. And animal welfare is an excellent origin for a sound moral philosophy.

I too suspect we two use 'conscience' in different ways. For me, conscience is affective consciousness of, and loyalty to , guiding moral principles. I may disapprove or despise a specific guiding moral principle.

That's what all religions try to pass on, guiding moral principles, including the Ten Commandments. One of those commandments is "don't steal", but what if a person, in order to survive, has to steal from others. Does that make him a sinner? What I am trying to convey is that the fulfillment of these guiding principles will come to fruition when God brings about the very thing religion prays for (i.e., the removal of all evil) but has been unable to accomplish. Only God (i.e., the laws of our nature guiding us) will bring about the kind of world we want, in his timing, not ours, and when he does, we won't need external guiding principles because our internal moral compass will be enough to guide us in the right direction.

Peacegirl wrote:
"He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved."

Fair enough. If you who have read the book say so I believe you that that is what the author wrote. Moreover most people of goodwill would want and aim for such a society. The objection is that such a society is certain to happen.

Not if you understand that once we have the way to accomplish what we have been praying for since time immemorial, we cannot not move in the direction because we cannot move against what we believe is in our best interest.

The usage of 'miracle' that you say Lessans used is a common imprecise usage. An educated philosopher would like define 'miracle' as intentional intervention into history by God or gods.

He made it very clear what he meant, and he qualified it. Philosophers don't have a monopoly on the use of the word "miracle," just as religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word God. To most of us, it would be considered an appropriate usage of the word miracle if man can accomplish what was never before possible: peace on earth. Here is the excerpt again for anyone who didn't see it.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

[Belinda]

You are right when you say philosophers don't own the word 'miracle'. Nevertheless
philosophy is the activity of precise and explicit use of language. Lessan's linguistic register is poetic.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb.

Whatever. I suppose your latest whine presents an oppottunity to test an hypothesis again, so let's give it a go.

The problem I am concerned with here - and that makes it the only thing I am testing in this post - is that I found it seemingly impossible to dumb down any basic philosophical point sufficiently for you to understand. It's impossible for some reason to show you how arguments that lack certain structures don't prove things. As Atla has noted there are competing explanations for this, and as you have noted, one of those is that maybe you are just kind of dumb.

You have no idea what you're talking about because the structure was there. You have just refused to acknowledge it, for WHATEVER REASON.

We can plausibly test whether you are tactically obtuse when confronted with counterarguments or just inherently stupid by trying to dumb down some other information until we get it into your thick skull, and maybe shed some light on that other matter as we do so. So... here is a simplified guide to opening and closing tags when using the internet for communication purposes... let's see if we can find a way to explain the fucking simple skill of quoting stuff.

The proof is not dumbed down. As I have continued to say, it's really not an argument at all. It's a demonstration. Big difference.

The only thing you really need to get is that whenever you open a tag such as a quote or italicising big blocks of text, that open tag isn't paired to a closer, it uses the first compatible closing tag that arrives. Failing to understand this is why all your posts are a confusing mess composed by a worryingly stupid person.

I get that, and that's what I've been doing. I may have forgotten to add the closed tags, but that doesn't make me stupid.

If we open tags thus

Text goes here

..... The closing /quote tag applies to the level 1 tag not because they were created as a pair, but because each opening tag greedily consumes the first closing tag it encounters

If we open up two levels of tags, the second opening tag consumes not the second closing tag, but the first tag it meets, because they are not cooperating, they greedily consume the first thing they come to.

So... with

Quoting text

Quoted text

... you notice that the opening tags are specific, but the closing tags are not. The way this expands would be

Quoting text
....

....Quoted text
....

So that is all you have to do to stop ruining all your quotes. Just learn to care a little bit about how other people are able to read your posts, have enough decency to accept responsibility for your end of that instead of whining, and know where the /quote to close each quote is. Also, maybe use the preview button if in doubt.

Yes, I'm trying to do the preview. It makes me look less stupid when I finally do publish.

Beyond that you have one other problem. You take the initial quote opening tag that is auto generated and includes the user_id and time and post_id of the post you are quoiting and you leave that entirely unclosed, which is how you are consistently attributing almost everything you write at the moment to Belinda. I recommended you to just delete that tag weeks ago. If you acn't do that, then just close it immediately instead. Most of your posts don't have enough closing tags for the opening tags because you think that opening a new quote tage to say

somehow replaces the tag you are moronically indifferent to.

I admit I have made terrible blunders but I am sincerely trying. It's just hard for me to care when no one seems interested.

There, I have surely made it impossible for you to fail at basic quoting tasks now unless you are a moron. Once you have managed to quote with the proficiency of a basic average person, we may argue about why you are not able to reason at the level of a basic average person, but at least we will have a relevant data point.

You are so kind to take the time to help me. I'm sincerely grateful. I have lost motivation to even care about the quote tags when people have lied about this man. I hope my situation will make you just a wee bit more patient. I saved this post, but if I am wrong again, my hope is that you will not belittle me. It's like having an insulin receptor that is resistant to glucose, yet people don't understand why you can't do what they can do. If things go wrong again (and I apologize in advance), maybe you will give me a little more grace. I'm wondering if a screenshot could be helpful. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially when people learn better through different modalities. Just be clear, FlashDangerpants, that my confusion over quote tags has nothing to do with Lessans' claims, so please don't try to connect the two.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just be clear that my confusion over quote tags has nothing to do with Lessans' claims, so please don't try to connect the two.

I'm sorry if this sounds judgmental, but I explained clearly why there is a link between your inability to comprehend basic organisation of tags in a web form and your similar difficulties with the organisation of premises and conclusions in an argument. I also explicitly told you what was the "only thing I am testing in this post".

Can't say it went very well in general.

[peacegirl]

Just be clear that my confusion over quote tags has nothing to do with Lessans' claims, so please don't try to connect the two.

I'm sorry if this sounds judgmental, but I explained clearly why there is a link between your inability to comprehend basic organisation of tags in a web form and your similar difficulties with the organisation of premises and conclusions in an argument. I also explicitly told you what was the "only thing I am testing in this post".

Can't say it went very well in general.

Your feeling that there was no basic organization of premises and conclusions in an argument is false. I have explained over and over that this is not an argument, so he may not follow the rules that are typical. That being said, he leads us on a step-by-step PROOF, which you ignore out of hand because of a structure of analysis that you think is missing. But it isn't missing. The premises he puts forth (which we can go over) follow accurately to the conclusion. That makes his proof valid AND SOUND.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just be clear that my confusion over quote tags has nothing to do with Lessans' claims, so please don't try to connect the two.

I'm sorry if this sounds judgmental, but I explained clearly why there is a link between your inability to comprehend basic organisation of tags in a web form and your similar difficulties with the organisation of premises and conclusions in an argument. I also explicitly told you what was the "only thing I am testing in this post".

Can't say it went very well in general.

Your feeling that there was no basic organization of premises and conclusions in an argument is false. I have explained over and over that this is not an argument, so he may not follow the rules that are typical. That being said, he leads us on a step-by-step PROOF, which you ignore out of hand because of a structure of analysis that you think is missing. But it isn't missing. The premises he puts forth (which we can go over) follow accurately to the conclusion. That makes his proof valid AND SOUND.

Some of the claims you make there are contradicted by other claims you make there. But fine, if you are able to lay out the premises and conclusions of the argument that isn't an argument but is an argument. Which doesn't follow the rules of an argument but is valid and sound according to the rules it doesn't follow, then please proceed.

[Atla]

You are the one deflecting and you know it. Show me the exact page, not page numbers, where these things were mentioned, or is this just your interpretation? You know you can't do it because it's not there. You are lying Atla.

Looks like you didn't read the book.

“I prefer. . .”
Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life.

[Note: This also does not mean we have considered all possible options, only those that have come to mind or have been brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors.] After coming home, she may have a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may decide to go back to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to just keep the dress because returning it involves too much time and effort making this the least preferable choice. Each moment offers a new set of alternatives, but always in the direction of greater satisfaction. “Is that it? You mean there is nothing else, and this is supposed to satisfy me? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that other people are just as confused as me. Frankly, you could never prove by me that man’s will is not free simply because I can’t follow your reasoning. Isn’t there something else you can add to prove your equation, just as we can prove that two from six leaves four because four plus two equals six?” To satisfy you, I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible 47 choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative? “Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.” “Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?” “No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘It makes no difference’?” Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice. “But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied with things that I have done, and at that exact moment, isn’t it obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.” “That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this. Go ahead and try.” “Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat 49 it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.” In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow one? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A. Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time. 50 The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free. In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control. “It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.” Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. 51 The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?” “How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.” “All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise 52 had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

Etc., as I said even a child would understand that such chit-chats don't constitue undeniable proof. So why don't you understand it, is it money or some complex? (well I suppose it also could be both)

[peacegirl]

You are right when you say philosophers don't own the word 'miracle'. Nevertheless
philosophy is the activity of precise and explicit use of language. Lessan's linguistic register is poetic.

That does not prove him wrong. Call it poetic if you so choose. He explained what the word meant in the context he was using it. That was enough.

[peacegirl]

I'm sorry if this sounds judgmental, but I explained clearly why there is a link between your inability to comprehend basic organisation of tags in a web form and your similar difficulties with the organisation of premises and conclusions in an argument. I also explicitly told you what was the "only thing I am testing in this post".

Can't say it went very well in general.

Your feeling that there was no basic organization of premises and conclusions in an argument is false. I have explained over and over that this is not an argument, so he may not follow the rules that are typical. That being said, he leads us on a step-by-step PROOF, which you ignore out of hand because of a structure of analysis that you think is missing. But it isn't missing. The premises he puts forth (which we can go over) follow accurately to the conclusion. That makes his proof valid AND SOUND.

Some of the claims you make there are contradicted by other claims you make. But fine, if you are able to lay out the premises and conclusions of the argument that isn't an argument but is an argument. Which doesn't follow the rules of an argument but is valid and sound according to the rules it doesn't follow, then please proceed.

Where do his premises and conclusions not follow? And please explain where some of the claims I make are contradicted by other claims I make. To repeat: This is not an argument in the typical sense; it is a demonstration.

The terms argument and demonstration refer to different concepts:

Argument: It is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning. It is the actual statement or claim being made, often used to support a conclusion or viewpoint.

Demonstration: This refers to the act of showing or explaining something, often through a vivid representation or process. It can also be a public display of opinion or a scientific proof.

In summary, an argument is a statement, while a demonstration is the process of showing or explaining something.

[peacegirl]

You are the one deflecting and you know it. Show me the exact page, not page numbers, where these things were mentioned, or is this just your interpretation? You know you can't do it because it's not there. You are lying Atla.

Looks like you didn't read the book.

“I prefer. . .”
Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life.

[Note: This also does not mean we have considered all possible options, only those that have come to mind or have been brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors.] After coming home, she may have a change of heart and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may decide to go back to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to just keep the dress because returning it involves too much time and effort making this the least preferable choice. Each moment offers a new set of alternatives, but always in the direction of greater satisfaction. “Is that it? You mean there is nothing else, and this is supposed to satisfy me? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that other people are just as confused as me. Frankly, you could never prove by me that man’s will is not free simply because I can’t follow your reasoning. Isn’t there something else you can add to prove your equation, just as we can prove that two from six leaves four because four plus two equals six?” To satisfy you, I shall put this to a mathematical test for further proof and clarification. Imagine that you were taken prisoner in wartime for espionage and condemned to death but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference that is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take, which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible 47 choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, provided no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative? “Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.” “Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?” “No, I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘It makes no difference’?” Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which is preferable, while other differences need a more careful consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others, especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case presents alternatives that affect choice. “But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied with things that I have done, and at that exact moment, isn’t it obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to hell.” “That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example of this. Go ahead and try.” “Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red; consequently, my taste lies in the direction of the latter, which gives me greater satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes me feel sick. Yet in spite of this, I am going to eat 49 it to demonstrate that even though I am dissatisfied and prefer the yellow apple, I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.” In response to this demonstration, isn’t it obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple, and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at that moment gave you greater satisfaction; otherwise, you would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow one? The normal circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in preference were changed by your desire to prove a point; therefore, it gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was an impossible choice (because it gave you less satisfaction under the circumstances), you were not free to choose A. Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results will always be the same because this is an immutable law. From moment to moment all through life, man can never move in the direction of dissatisfaction, and his every motion, conscious or unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or move to greater satisfaction; otherwise, as has been shown, not being dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch, as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life, pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction. Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment, and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time. 50 The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free. In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control. “It’s amazing; all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.” Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied, but I’m not. 51 The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?” “How about that? He brought out something I never would have thought of.” “All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise 52 had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?”

Etc., as I said even a child would understand that such chit-chats don't constitue undeniable proof. So why don't you understand it, is it money or some complex? (well I suppose it also could be both)

What the hell did you do Atla? You mixed up the pages. There is no way people could follow this. How low can you go?

[Atla]

What the hell did you do Atla. You mixed up these pages. How dirty can you go?

Is deflection all you have, liar?

[peacegirl]

What the hell did you do Atla. You mixed up these pages. How dirty can you go?

Is deflection all you have, liar?

You are the liar Atla and you know it. You cannot accept his proof of determinism for some reason. Maybe it's too easy for you to believe that after thousands of years, it has come down to "greater satisfaction." I'm not quite sure, but the way talk to me is unacceptable so please stop talking to me.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your feeling that there was no basic organization of premises and conclusions in an argument is false. I have explained over and over that this is not an argument, so he may not follow the rules that are typical. That being said, he leads us on a step-by-step PROOF, which you ignore out of hand because of a structure of analysis that you think is missing. But it isn't missing. The premises he puts forth (which we can go over) follow accurately to the conclusion. That makes his proof valid AND SOUND.

Some of the claims you make there are contradicted by other claims you make. But fine, if you are able to lay out the premises and conclusions of the argument that isn't an argument but is an argument. Which doesn't follow the rules of an argument but is valid and sound according to the rules it doesn't follow, then please proceed.

Where do his premises and conclusions not follow? And please explain where some of the claims I make are contradicted by other claims I make. To repeat: This is not an argument in the typical sense; it is a demonstration.

The terms argument and demonstration refer to different concepts:

Argument: It is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning. It is the actual statement or claim being made, often used to support a conclusion or viewpoint.

Demonstration: This refers to the act of showing or explaining something, often through a vivid representation or process. It can also be a public display of opinion or a scientific proof.

In summary, an argument is a statement, while a demonstration is the process of showing or explaining something.

Seriously, how are you still failing to work the quote system? Once again, the burden falls upon me to make your post legible. You are consistently inconsiderate.

Please identify any valid argument that you have presented. To be valid it is required that the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must necessarily also be true. An argument is sound only if the relationship between premises is as I have just described (valid), and those premises all happen to also be true.

Don't bother trying to lecture me about what an argument is.

[Atla]

What the hell did you do Atla. You mixed up these pages. How dirty can you go?

Is deflection all you have, liar?

You are the liar Atla and you know it. You cannot accept his proof of determinism for some reason. Maybe it's too easy for you to believe that after thousands of years, it has come down to "greater satisfaction." I'm not quite sure, but the way talk to me is unacceptable so please stop talking to me.

Anyone with half a brain can see that he never even attempted to present a proof. Yet keeps repeating that he has proven it.

It's surprising how transparently you two are lying and how unbothered you are by it. If you can't handle being called out then don't post on a public forum.