New Discovery

[Belinda]

ChatGPT said:

Yes — Marshall S. Lessans self-published his work.

The book went through a few incarnations under different titles:

Man’s Supreme Inheritance (first edition, 1970s)

The Correct Scribe (a later version)

The Truth About Human Nature (final version, reissued posthumously by family in the 1990s–2000s)

He claimed to have discovered “immutable natural laws” governing human behavior, morality, and happiness, which he insisted were as undeniable as physical laws. Since his theories were outside mainstream science and philosophy, no academic press published them. He financed publication himself, sometimes through small vanity presses, and distributed copies privately or through niche listings.

[peacegirl]

Sorry you did not take the time to understand the actual discovery which takes more than a few sound bites.

Yeah, that's too bad. I suppose 50 words was too high a price for my salvation.

Salvation? This has nothing to do with religion.

[peacegirl]

ChatGPT said:

Yes — Marshall S. Lessans self-published his work.

WHO IS MARSHALL S. LESSANS?

The book went through a few incarnations under different titles:

Man’s Supreme Inheritance (first edition, 1970s)

WHAT? THIS WAS NOT THE NAME OF HIS FIRT BOOK AND IT WASN'T IN THE 1070S.

The Correct Scribe (a later version)

NEVER HEARD OF THIS NAME.

The Truth About Human Nature (final version, reissued posthumously by family in the 1990s–2000s)

NEVER HEARD OF THIS NAME EITHER. CLICK ON SEYMOUR LESSANS IN THE SEARCH BAR ON AMAZON. YOU WILL SEE HIS BOOKS THERE.

He claimed to have discovered “immutable natural laws” governing human behavior, morality, and happiness, which he insisted were as undeniable as physical laws. Since his theories were outside mainstream science and philosophy, no academic press published them. He financed publication himself, sometimes through small vanity presses, and distributed copies privately or through niche listings.

ChatGpt got it all wrong. I tried to get a summary from ChatGpt regarding the first three chapters, and it was so off the mark I couldn't use it. I just watched a video where it shows how ChatGpt not only can get algorithms wrong, but it can cause the brain to become stagnant in that we forget how to process information for ourselves, which is essential for critical thinking. A machine cannot always take the place of human input when it comes to certain analytics, and you did nothing but trust ChatGpt without any critical thought on your part.

https://youtu.be/6sJ50Ybp44I?si=2--iNPlb2yz5GX5I

[Atla]

ChatGPT is easy to use:

Can we undoubtedly prove or disprove today that people always (without exception) do what they think is most satisfying to them? Summary only.

No, we cannot undoubtedly prove or disprove that people always do what they think is most satisfying. It's a philosophical claim tied to motivations and subjective experience, which are not fully observable or measurable. While many theories (e.g., psychological egoism) argue this point, it remains unfalsifiable and debated.

What the AI just wrote should be really easy to grasp but observe how peacegirl won't be able to understand it.

[peacegirl]

I have read philosophy at university and at home for many years. You haven't. I have raised relevant issues based on that learning, and you have failed to understand them. To deflect this problem, or perhaps out of some Dunning Krueger's situation, you insist instead that I didn't read your chapters; that I am animated by fear of determinism; and that I am dishonest and cruel. While I am perfectly happy to be quite cruelly honest with you, as I often am with Belinda and Walker, the rest is just your effort to ad hominem me.

I know you have tried, and I appreciate the hard work it took to get there. I commend you highly, but please don’t use your education as a standard to disqualify this author. That’s all I’m asking of you.

You don't understand the criticisms I level, that's fine, I will find a way to express them in terms that you can pick up on if you are honest and of average intelligence. But after I have done so multiple times, and you accuse me of only calling you dumb because you can't use quote tags, either your honesty or your ability must be below the necessary minimum.

I admit I am in nursery school when it comes to tech because I’ve never done it. Truthfully, does this exclude the possibility that he is right? No, it doesn’t. The two don’t relate.

The simple fact is that you have wasted years on this book selling project. And you have not changed your approach to it in all that time. I must therefore conclude that the primary realm in which you fail is intelligence.

Its ingenuous to go down that rabbit hole. With your belief that he had nothing of value before you really have gotten a full understanding of how this works will not give the respect this knowledge deserves. I hope this doesn’t happen because this thread is dying a death that is extremely premature and preventing what we all want: peace on earth.

Please just stop trying with the quote thing. You only make it worse. Just reply at the end of the post as I am here, that is the best you can do.

I told you explicitly that I have raised philosophical problems with the work you have put before me. Here you go again, in your reply to that, assuming that the only reason I think you are an idiot is that you cannot work computers. I think you are an idiot because you cannot even get that there are problems with this book. That is the primary reason I consider you a complete windowlicker.

At no point in any of our conversations has my disdain for your inept tag excesses been anything like the reason why I think your dad's book is bad. Yet here you go again, insisting that I am that random. You are even replying to a paragraph where I make it explicit that I think you are dumb because you keep overlooking this and insisting it is predicated on your computer problems.... you still replied by accusing me of predicating all of this on your computer problems... You must be a moron to reply that way to that prompt, no capable person would stoop so low. You are a total idiot, it is clear and obvious.

You provided three chapters and those were not very good. If I cannot discuss the book on the basis of the three chapters, you can either move onto the fourth chapter (which you refuse to do unless paid) or you will have to account for issues raised by the first three. I am not buying your book. You wouldn't like the Amazon review I would leave if I did.

There is no reason at all not to make note of the fact that you have wasted years selling this book to nobody and not looking for new ways of expressing the content. If peace on earth truly depends on you selling millions of copies of this book and getting rich, the world is fucked, because you do a shit job.

You are the bringer of war and death by your lazy and inflexible promotional campaign.

You are not open to this work, period. You have made up your mind that he's wrong on all counts, and that's the end of that. You have also used expletives to make it appear that you are the one who is the university graduate, not him. The words you use against me such as stupid, moron, inept, dumb, idiot, incapable, windowlicker (whatever that means), etc., is a giveaway that you think I must be the most gullible person in the world for believing in this book. Are you trying to save me from myself or something? This started from day one with your belief that choosing in the direction of greater satisfaction is a meaningless tautology (when it is anything but), and you refuse to take this book seriously as a result. Steve Patterson's challenge didn't phase you even a little bit or get you to question the possibility that there could be something here.

FYI, my father even said that someone might be able to do a better job, and he welcomed it. But you can't help because you don't understand this book at all. You never raised any other issue besides your belief that he didn't have a sound argument since it doesn't start off with a premise and end with a conclusion and because it was a tautology. He was an astute observer (which is an aspect of epistemology) and he proved the two-sided equation is sound (in a step-by-step manner) while extending this equation in 'Chapter Two to show how it can change human conduct for the better. As I said, he welcomed anyone who could do a better job than him. He wasn't egotistical. But you don't even know what his discovery is, so you couldn't be of any help even if you wanted to. What is the two-sided equation Flash? I am at a disadvantage because the book has not been read in its entirety. I even cut and pasted the first three chapters for you in particular, but no matter how hard I have tried, it has fallen on deaf ears. Each time I hear your responses, I cringe, because you're incorrect. I would never move on to his other chapters because you would throw them out without a second thought, and without any understanding whatsoever.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

[FlashDangerpants]

I know you have tried, and I appreciate the hard work it took to get there. I commend you highly, but please don’t use your education as a standard to disqualify this author. That’s all I’m asking of you.


I admit I am in nursery school when it comes to tech because I’ve never done it. Truthfully, does this exclude the possibility that he is right? No, it doesn’t. The two don’t relate.

Its ingenuous to go down that rabbit hole. With your belief that he had nothing of value before you really have gotten a full understanding of how this works will not give the respect this knowledge deserves. I hope this doesn’t happen because this thread is dying a death that is extremely premature and preventing what we all want: peace on earth.

Please just stop trying with the quote thing. You only make it worse. Just reply at the end of the post as I am here, that is the best you can do.

I told you explicitly that I have raised philosophical problems with the work you have put before me. Here you go again, in your reply to that, assuming that the only reason I think you are an idiot is that you cannot work computers. I think you are an idiot because you cannot even get that there are problems with this book. That is the primary reason I consider you a complete windowlicker.

At no point in any of our conversations has my disdain for your inept tag excesses been anything like the reason why I think your dad's book is bad. Yet here you go again, insisting that I am that random. You are even replying to a paragraph where I make it explicit that I think you are dumb because you keep overlooking this and insisting it is predicated on your computer problems.... you still replied by accusing me of predicating all of this on your computer problems... You must be a moron to reply that way to that prompt, no capable person would stoop so low. You are a total idiot, it is clear and obvious.

You provided three chapters and those were not very good. If I cannot discuss the book on the basis of the three chapters, you can either move onto the fourth chapter (which you refuse to do unless paid) or you will have to account for issues raised by the first three. I am not buying your book. You wouldn't like the Amazon review I would leave if I did.

There is no reason at all not to make note of the fact that you have wasted years selling this book to nobody and not looking for new ways of expressing the content. If peace on earth truly depends on you selling millions of copies of this book and getting rich, the world is fucked, because you do a shit job.

You are the bringer of war and death by your lazy and inflexible promotional campaign.

You are not open to this work, period. You have made up your mind that he's wrong on all counts, and that's the end of that.

Well I have shown how it is badly argued already. And that was just the super obvious stuff that anyone paying attention could see. If this turd ever made in front of an actual philosopher you would learn there is much more that is wrong with it than I can scope out.

You have also used expletives to make it appear that you are the one who is the university graduate, not him.

That's not what expletives are used for. What a strange thing to write even by your standards.

The words you use against me such as stupid, moron, inept, dumb, idiot, incapable, windowlicker (whatever that means), etc., is a giveaway that you think I must be the most gullible person in the world for believing in this book.

They mainly just reference your performance in this discussion. I don't seriously think anybody is stupid enough to fall for this book, and I suspect that includes even you. I think you are on the hunt for worse idiots than yourself so that you can siphon an income from them.

Are you trying to save me or something? This started from day one with your belief that because whatever one chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction, and because it is a tautology, you don't want to hear anything more. Steve Patterson's challenge didn't phase you or even get you to question that maybe there is something to tautologies that you might have missed.

You didn't understand the point of the tautology thing at all. The Patterson thing is in itself unimportant and in this context not even relevant.

FYI, my father even said that someone might be able to do a better job, and he welcomed it. But you can't help because you don't understand this book at all.

You've already told me that nobody except you ever has read it the way it is supposed to be read. After decades of tying to sell it. That must be down to you doing a shitty job of explaining it. You are the one who has to do the better job. Which is a shame, you are an idiot who never will.

What issues are raised in the first three chapters other than your rejection that his proof of "no free will" is meaningless? You never raised any other issue besides your belief that he didn't have a sound argument that starts off with premises and ends with conclusions.

There are no viable arguments in the first three chapters of any sort. It is irrelevant that some random dude thinks he can just say that mathematical, scientific and deductive proofs are all the same thing, they are absolutely not the same thing, nor similar. If it is unclear what sort of reason from that list he has used to make some point, then the argument is fatally flawed. The arguments he presents do not adhere to any of those, nor any other form of reason that is recognisably useful for epistemological purposes.

He made astute observations

In your opinion, but your opinion is not backed up by any useful form of reason. I don't think they are astute and unless you are in position to show a deductive reason why I am wrong not to think so, then either the book has failed entirely, or you have failed entirely, if there is any difference there.

and he proved each side of his two-sided equation and then showed where it leads.

He didn't prove it though. He wrote some bland gibberish and called that a mathematical and an undeniable and a scientific proof. But it was none of those three incompatible things.

You don't even know what the discovery is, so how could you help? What is the two-sided equation Flash? I am at a disadvantage because the book has not been read in its entirety. I even cut and pasted the first three chapters for you in particular, but you turned on me. Everything after that fiasco fell on deaf ears. I would never move on to his other chapters because you would throw them out without a second thought, and without any understanding whatsoever.

If you have an argument, make your argument. If all you have is self-pity, I have no kind words for that.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

Unimportant. This does not argue against what I wrote. You just keep pasting this without ever demonstrating relevance.

[peacegirl]

Please just stop trying with the quote thing. You only make it worse. Just reply at the end of the post as I am here, that is the best you can do.

I told you explicitly that I have raised philosophical problems with the work you have put before me. Here you go again, in your reply to that, assuming that the only reason I think you are an idiot is that you cannot work computers. I think you are an idiot because you cannot even get that there are problems with this book. That is the primary reason I consider you a complete windowlicker.

At no point in any of our conversations has my disdain for your inept tag excesses been anything like the reason why I think your dad's book is bad. Yet here you go again, insisting that I am that random. You are even replying to a paragraph where I make it explicit that I think you are dumb because you keep overlooking this and insisting it is predicated on your computer problems.... you still replied by accusing me of predicating all of this on your computer problems... You must be a moron to reply that way to that prompt, no capable person would stoop so low. You are a total idiot, it is clear and obvious.

You provided three chapters and those were not very good. If I cannot discuss the book on the basis of the three chapters, you can either move onto the fourth chapter (which you refuse to do unless paid) or you will have to account for issues raised by the first three. I am not buying your book. You wouldn't like the Amazon review I would leave if I did.

There is no reason at all not to make note of the fact that you have wasted years selling this book to nobody and not looking for new ways of expressing the content. If peace on earth truly depends on you selling millions of copies of this book and getting rich, the world is fucked, because you do a shit job.

You are the bringer of war and death by your lazy and inflexible promotional campaign.

You are not open to this work, period. You have made up your mind that he's wrong on all counts, and that's the end of that.

Well I have shown how it is badly argued already. And that was just the super obvious stuff that anyone paying attention could see. If this turd ever made in front of an actual philosopher you would learn there is much more that is wrong with it than I can scope out.

PEACEGIRL: Another expletive? Who are you calling a turd? If you are calling my father this disgusting name, our conversation is over. I can only tolerate you so far. It is an excuse to say that there is much more that is wrong than you can scope out when you can't even show me one (other than the tautology reference).

You have also used expletives to make it appear that you are the one who is the university graduate, not him.

That's not what expletives are used for. What a strange thing to write even by your standards.

PEACEGIRL: You seem to think that only you have the ability to discuss philosophy. This discovery was borne out of philosophical thought but it's not philosophical; it is factual. Of course, you'll disagree.

The words you use against me such as stupid, moron, inept, dumb, idiot, incapable, windowlicker (whatever that means), etc., is a giveaway that you think I must be the most gullible person in the world for believing in this book.

They mainly just reference your performance in this discussion. I don't seriously think anybody is stupid enough to fall for this book, and I suspect that includes even you. I think you are on the hunt for worse idiots than yourself so that you can siphon an income from them.

PEACEGIRL: You're very mean on top of being wrong.

Are you trying to save me or something? This started from day one with your belief that because whatever one chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction, and because it is a tautology, you don't want to hear anything more. Steve Patterson's challenge didn't phase you or even get you to question that maybe there is something to tautologies that you might have missed.

You didn't understand the point of the tautology thing at all. The Patterson thing is in itself unimportant and in this context not even relevant.

PEACEGIRL: It is very relevant, but It's actually unimportant at this rate because the proof follows when it can be seen that no one can move in a direction that hurts anyone with a first blow. That is the entire point of this knowledge. One day it will be shown to be true. When that day comes, our world will be better off because of it.

FYI, my father even said that someone might be able to do a better job, and he welcomed it. But you can't help because you don't understand this book at all.

You've already told me that nobody except you ever has read it the way it is supposed to be read. After decades of tying to sell it. That must be down to you doing a shitty job of explaining it. You are the one who has to do the better job. Which is a shame, you are an idiot who never will.

PEACEGIRL: I have never advertised this book. Will you please stop calling me names? Why do you have to do name call? I don't get it.

What issues are raised in the first three chapters other than your rejection that his proof of "no free will" is meaningless? You never raised any other issue besides your belief that he didn't have a sound argument that starts off with premises and ends with conclusions.

There are no viable arguments in the first three chapters of any sort. It is irrelevant that some random dude thinks he can just say that mathematical, scientific and deductive proofs are all the same thing, they are absolutely not the same thing, nor similar. If it is unclear what sort of reason from that list he has used to make some point, then the argument is fatally flawed. The arguments he presents do not adhere to any of those, nor any other form of reason that is recognisably useful for epistemological purposes.

PEACEGIRL: He didn't use the word "deductive". He was trying to explain that in the context of his writing, the words "scientific," "mathematical," and "undeniable." are synonymous so people don't get caught up in trying to distinguish between them, like you're doing. He was making a distinction between these 3 words and words that constitute an opinion, theory, or conjecture.

He made astute observations

In your opinion, but your opinion is not backed up by any useful form of reason. I don't think they are astute and unless you are in position to show a deductive reason why I am wrong not to think so, then either the book has failed entirely, or you have failed entirely, if there is any difference there.

Of course he used deductive reasoning. His entire book was based on observation that begins with a first premise and ends with a conclusion. If something is a law, it applies to everyone, not just a few.

In logic, induction refers specifically to "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances." In other words, it means forming a generalization based on what is known or observed.

drawing out
the production of facts to prove a general statement.

and he proved each side of his two-sided equation and then showed where it leads.

He didn't prove it though. He wrote some bland gibberish and called that a mathematical and an undeniable and a scientific proof. But it was none of those three incompatible things.

PEACEGIRL: As I said, he tried to clarify these terms so as not to confuse people when he used them.

You don't even know what the discovery is, so how could you help? What is the two-sided equation Flash? I am at a disadvantage because the book has not been read in its entirety. I even cut and pasted the first three chapters for you in particular, but you turned on me. Everything after that fiasco fell on deaf ears. I would never move on to his other chapters because you would throw them out without a second thought, and without any understanding whatsoever.

If you have an argument, make your argument. If all you have is self-pity, I have no kind words for that.

PEACEGIRL: Where am I pitying myself? You need to go over the first three chapters and show me exactly where he is wrong.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

Unimportant. This does not argue against what I wrote. You just keep pasting this without ever demonstrating relevance.

Tautologies are not always useless. That is what you need to appreciate rather than claiming it's irrelevant.

[FlashDangerpants]

Tautologies are not always useless. That is what you need to appreciate rather than claiming it's irrelevant.

That makes sense as a reply to what I wrote. And the text you supplied has nothing to do with the actual objection that your thing is an attempt to prove a tautology. Nor that the claim you make repeatedly that if man's will were free he would be able to act against his own wishes is demonstrated untrue by the tautological observation that every action is always to be interpreted as an expression of the actors wishes. You have been consistently too stupid to understand these points. My point was never that tautologies are useless. You just Googled for something to throw at me and all you found was an essay about them not being useless so you fooled yourself that was an argument against me.

A tautology is already explained. That is by definition, tautologies are self-explanatory and self-proving, truths by definition have those features. So if you try to prove a tautology you don't explain or prove anything. Your argument attempts to prove a tautology. It gains no explanatory power by doing so. The whole life moves in a direction bit would need something beyond the tautology part to have any explanatory power. Perhaps your dad did understand and it's just that you don't... because he wrote the specious thing about life always following a path of satisfaction and you cut that down to just a detail of human psychology. His thing goes beyond the tautology. Your version of it doesn't. This is of course a trap, I don't want you to think I was being tricky with you. If you change your tack and go back to the wording in the book, you still have a shit argument, I just use something else against it.

But please tell me you at least understand the very simple tautology objection now. This is just absurd that I can't get such a simple piece of information into you.

For the rest, I am not interested in fishing your text out of the middle of posts. Just do your writing at the end of the post, you aren't able to do better, so that is your best, do your best please.

Your dad tries to have his cake and eat it too by having one argument pose as every sort of different argument there is so that it is impossible to discern any actual logic in it at all. You make matters worse when you say he doesn't use philosophical argument in one sentence, but then lay claim to deductive reasoning in another. That you still can't work out why this is a problem speaks ill of your chances.

And in reference to that criticism that you cannot distinguish whether a claim is meant to be scientific (which means inductive), deductive or mathematical in type, telling me that it is both inductive and deductive is the second stupidest answer you could possibly assemble.

You are doing a shit job of selling the book, the sales figures will confirm that. I don't need to stop treating you like an idiot, you need to stop being one. It's not my concern to make you feel that your shitty book selling is a valuable enterprise that you should be congratulated for, what kind of grown adult needs participation trophies?

I don't need to go back over the work yet again and show you where it was wrong. I already did that, and so far the impediment has been your ability to read and comprehend. I cannot make you stop being a dimwit by reading the same drivel yet again. The best I could do is find some new argument to use against it, but why would I need one given the sate of your understanding of the existing issues?

[peacegirl]

Tautologies are not always useless. That is what you need to appreciate rather than claiming it's irrelevant.

That makes sense as a reply to what I wrote. And the text you supplied has nothing to do with the actual objection that your thing is an attempt to prove a tautology. Nor that the claim you make repeatedly that if man's will were free he would be able to act against his own wishes is demonstrated untrue by the tautological observation that every action is always to be interpreted as an expression of the actors wishes. You have been consistently too stupid to understand these points. My point was never that tautologies are useless. You just Googled for something to throw at me and all you found was an essay about them not being useless so you fooled yourself that was an argument against me.

PEACEGIRL: You are basically in agreement with me because you admit that a person cannot go against his own wishes (which in my parlance means "cannot go against what gives him greater satisfaction). It is in keeping with having no free will, for we cannot go against our own wishes or what gives us greater satisfaction, making any other option than the one chosen, a realistic mirage. While we are considering option A or B before a choice is made, it is still under consideration, but after a choice is made, any other choice was an impossibility because it would have gone against one's wishes or would have given less satisfaction under the conditions. We are basically on the same page, but you, for some reason, don't like the idea that will is not free.

FD: A tautology is already explained. That is by definition, tautologies are self-explanatory and self-proving, truths by definition have those features. So if you try to prove a tautology you don't explain or prove anything. Your argument attempts to prove a tautology. It gains no explanatory power by doing so. The whole life moves in a direction bit would need something beyond the tautology part to have any explanatory power. Perhaps your dad did understand and it's just that you don't... because he wrote the specious thing about life always following a path of satisfaction and you cut that down to just a detail of human psychology. His thing goes beyond the tautology. Your version of it doesn't. This is of course a trap, I don't want you to think I was being tricky with you. If you change your tack and go back to the wording in the book, you still have a shit argument, I just use something else against it.

But please tell me you at least understand the very simple tautology objection now. This is just absurd that I can't get such a simple piece of information into you.

PEACEGIRL: I've been using the wording in the book. The thing you leave out is that being that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, means that any other alternative that we were considering could not have occurred. We are not free to choose A or B equally (or alternatively) as long as there are meaningful differences that push us to choose one thing over another in the direction of satisfaction. I get what you're saying regarding tautologies but choosing B over A (based on motivation and desire), matters more than whatever is chosen is chosen and therefore tautological with no explanatory power. Choosing B in this instance (not to shoot the gun at someone) is not a free one because, given the exact same conditions, he could not have chosen A (to shoot the gun at someone). Again, proof will come one day when it is seen that man cannot hurt another with a first blow when it becomes the least desirable choice.

FD: For the rest, I am not interested in fishing your text out of the middle of posts. Just do your writing at the end of the post, you aren't able to do better, so that is your best, do your best please.

PEACEGIRL: I got your quotes right, but my posts fell under your quotes also. Could you take a screenshot of what I'm doing wrong? That would help a lot.

FD: Your dad tries to have his cake and eat it too by having one argument pose as every sort of different argument there is so that it is impossible to discern any actual logic in it at all. You make matters worse when you say he doesn't use philosophical argument in one sentence, but then lay claim to deductive reasoning in another. That you still can't work out why this is a problem speaks ill of your chances.

PEACEGIRL: He demonstrates his position, but he doesn't argue it in the way you are expecting. I tried to show you what propositions were necessary for his claim to be true. First, he explains that determinism cannot be defined as the past causes the present only because the past doesn't exist except in memory. Let's start there. If you can accept this, then I can help explain why it was necessary to tweak the standard definition to make it more accurate.

FD: And in reference to that criticism that you cannot distinguish whether a claim is meant to be scientific (which means inductive), deductive or mathematical in type, telling me that it is both inductive and deductive is the second stupidest answer you could possibly assemble.

PEACEGIRL: I never said that there was no distinguishing between inductive, deductive, or mathematical in type. He interchanged the three words: mathematical, scientific, and undeniable throughout the book and he didn't want to confuse anyone. He used these words synonymously in contrast to theory, opinion, or hypothesis. He prefaced it this way to make sure people would not tear these words apart like you're doing.

FD: You are doing a shit job of selling the book, the sales figures will confirm that. I don't need to stop treating you like an idiot, you need to stop being one. It's not my concern to make you feel that your shitty book selling is a valuable enterprise that you should be congratulated for, what kind of grown adult needs participation trophies?

PEACEGIRL: I am not asking for any congratulations or some kind of trophy. It just hurts that there is knowledge here that can literally change our world for the better, and you're throwing it away.

FD: I don't need to go back over the work yet again and show you where it was wrong. I already did that, and so far the impediment has been your ability to read and comprehend. I cannot make you stop being a dimwit by reading the same drivel yet again. The best I could do is find some new argument to use against it, but why would I need one given the sate of your understanding of the existing issues?


PEACEGIRL: I have to believe that your need to throw more and more expletives at me is beyond your ability to control. It's sad that you have to do this because it's really not nice. You say you don't need to go over the work yet again, yet I don't see where you went over it the first time. Tell me what his discovery is. I can almost guarantee that you did not carefully read Chapter Two, which is really interesting. It's unfortunate. I have an understanding of the existing issues, but I cannot get through to you for some reason. If you can accept that we live in the present; therefore, the entire definition of determinism is inaccurate because the past can't cause us to do anything in a linear fashion, then I have something to go on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Tautologies are not always useless. That is what you need to appreciate rather than claiming it's irrelevant.

That makes sense as a reply to what I wrote. And the text you supplied has nothing to do with the actual objection that your thing is an attempt to prove a tautology. Nor that the claim you make repeatedly that if man's will were free he would be able to act against his own wishes is demonstrated untrue by the tautological observation that every action is always to be interpreted as an expression of the actors wishes. You have been consistently too stupid to understand these points. My point was never that tautologies are useless. You just Googled for something to throw at me and all you found was an essay about them not being useless so you fooled yourself that was an argument against me.

PEACEGIRL: You are basically in agreement with me because you admit that a person cannot go against his own wishes (which in my parlance means "cannot go against what gives him greater satisfaction). It is in keeping with having no free will, for we cannot go against our own wishes or what gives us greater satisfaction, making any other option than the one chosen, a realistic mirage. While we are considering option A or B before a choice is made, it is still under consideration, but after a choice is made, any other choice was an impossibility because it would have gone against one's wishes or would have given less satisfaction under the conditions. We are basically on the same page, but you, for some reason, don't like the idea that will is not free.

If I say something is obvious and a tautology, I am not "admitting" it. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever that a person cannot go against their own will except by impossibly willing to go against their own will. That is true irrespective of whether free will applies or does not. I am astonished that you still don't get this. Even if I have been overestimating your talent, you should have got there by now.

FD: A tautology is already explained. That is by definition, tautologies are self-explanatory and self-proving, truths by definition have those features. So if you try to prove a tautology you don't explain or prove anything. Your argument attempts to prove a tautology. It gains no explanatory power by doing so. The whole life moves in a direction bit would need something beyond the tautology part to have any explanatory power. Perhaps your dad did understand and it's just that you don't... because he wrote the specious thing about life always following a path of satisfaction and you cut that down to just a detail of human psychology. His thing goes beyond the tautology. Your version of it doesn't. This is of course a trap, I don't want you to think I was being tricky with you. If you change your tack and go back to the wording in the book, you still have a shit argument, I just use something else against it.

But please tell me you at least understand the very simple tautology objection now. This is just absurd that I can't get such a simple piece of information into you.

PEACEGIRL: I've been using the wording in the book. The thing you leave out is that being that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, means that any other alternative that we were considering could not have occurred. We are not free to choose A or B equally (or alternatively) as long as there are meaningful differences that push us to choose one thing over another in the direction of satisfaction.

This is just suffocating. I am not ignoring the greatest satisfaction thing, I am saying that it adds nothing and explains nothing and is not worth the bother of writing about. It amounts to a nothing on top of a tautology and the tautology completely explains everything that the "principle" in question purports to explain rendering it redundant. It is nothing but a rhetorical device and I have no need of it, nor does anybody else.

I get what you're saying regarding tautologies

You clearly don't. You are failing miserably at this.

but choosing B over A (based on motivation and desire), matters more than whatever is chosen is chosen and therefore tautological with no explanatory power. Choosing B in this instance (not to shoot the gun at someone) is not a free one because, given the exact same conditions, he could not have chosen A (to shoot the gun at someone). Again, proof will come one day when it is seen that man cannot hurt another with a first blow when it becomes the least desirable choice.

"when it becomes the least desirable choice".... quite. I have no reason to find your description of how that would come about remotely persuasive.

FD: For the rest, I am not interested in fishing your text out of the middle of posts. Just do your writing at the end of the post, you aren't able to do better, so that is your best, do your best please.

PEACEGIRL: I got your quotes right, but my posts fell under your quotes also. Could you take a screenshot of what I'm doing wrong? That would help a lot.

This forum doesn't support images. Everyone except you can manage this simple thing. I have already pointed out that your instinct is always to open a new quote tag to write your new stuff into. CLOSE THE TABS INSTEAD. Never type "[quote=peacegirl]" ever again. Just type [/quote] to close the currently open tag.

What do you think quote even means? I quote Hume and Kant, I don't quote me. Why do you think you should keep quoting yourself instead of pausing your quote of somebody else? How deeply self-obsessed are you?

That's enough instruction, you should be able to sort this out.

FD: Your dad tries to have his cake and eat it too by having one argument pose as every sort of different argument there is so that it is impossible to discern any actual logic in it at all. You make matters worse when you say he doesn't use philosophical argument in one sentence, but then lay claim to deductive reasoning in another. That you still can't work out why this is a problem speaks ill of your chances.

PEACEGIRL: He demonstrates his position, but he doesn't argue it in the way you are expecting. I tried to show you what propositions were necessary for his claim to be true. First, he explains that determinism cannot be defined as the past causes the present only because the past doesn't exist except in memory. Let's start there. If you can accept this, then I can help explain why it was necessary to tweak the standard definition to make it more accurate.

If you understand how the argument I am not seeing works, write your version of it. If you can't do that, then you don't understand it any better than I do.

Just explain. If I have to be infatuated with the argument before I can be allowed to know what it is, there's something wrong with the argument that you want hide from me. You keep conflating not agreeing with your presentation as failure to comprehend it, stop that, it's silly.

FD: And in reference to that criticism that you cannot distinguish whether a claim is meant to be scientific (which means inductive), deductive or mathematical in type, telling me that it is both inductive and deductive is the second stupidest answer you could possibly assemble.

PEACEGIRL: I never said that there was no distinguishing between inductive, deductive, or mathematical in type. He interchanged the three words: mathematical, scientific, and undeniable throughout the book and he didn't want to confuse anyone. He used these words synonymously in contrast to theory, opinion, or hypothesis. He prefaced it this way to make sure people would not tear these words apart like you're doing.

Well that's not what the sentence you are replying to even says that you said, so please read and comprehend prior to responding. It's bad enough with the quote thing, but constantly ignoring what I actually wrote to complain about something I didn't write is irritating beyond measure.

Those competing logics are not the same thing. They cannot become the same thing for all intents and purposes by just speaking the words, logic doesn't work that way. If an argument proceeds by mathematical reason towards some conclusion, then the working out in mathematical form is relevant. If the argument proceeds by scientific reason towards some conclusion, then the experimental data is required. And if an argument proceeds according to deductive (undeniable) conclusion, then a deductive argument of great strength is required for that. If nobody can tell which logic you used to get to the conclusion, then your argument is a failure.

You will never get anywhere if you don't deal with this problem. Trying to blame me will never help you.

FD: You are doing a shit job of selling the book, the sales figures will confirm that. I don't need to stop treating you like an idiot, you need to stop being one. It's not my concern to make you feel that your shitty book selling is a valuable enterprise that you should be congratulated for, what kind of grown adult needs participation trophies?

PEACEGIRL: I am not asking for any congratulations or some kind of trophy. It just hurts that there is knowledge here that can literally change our world for the better, and you're throwing it away.

It's you that is throwing it away though. You've done this conversation how many times? With me only once. It always goes the same way doesn't it? With you just pasting slices of text from a badly written book and people rejecting it for various reasons. You never learned to explain it better, you never developed any of the themes. You did nothing useful as it sank beneath the waves. But you are going to whine at me about it because you are always a victim.

FD: I don't need to go back over the work yet again and show you where it was wrong. I already did that, and so far the impediment has been your ability to read and comprehend. I cannot make you stop being a dimwit by reading the same drivel yet again. The best I could do is find some new argument to use against it, but why would I need one given the sate of your understanding of the existing issues?


PEACEGIRL: I have to believe that your need to throw more and more expletives at me is beyond your ability to control. It's sad that you have to do this because it's really not nice. You say you don't need to go over the work yet again, yet I don't see where you went over it the first time. Tell me what his discovery is. I can almost guarantee that you did not carefully read Chapter Two, which is really interesting. It's unfortunate. I have an understanding of the existing issues, but I cannot get through to you for some reason. If you can accept that we live in the present; therefore, the entire definition of determinism is inaccurate because the past can't cause us to do anything in a linear fashion, then I have something to go on.

The past participle of exist is existed, so the reason why the past doesn't exist is that it is in the past, where it existed. In the past. Past tense. The causation of the now arrives from the past and continues into the future. Trying to make an epiphany out of semantic nothings from grammatical tenses is hilarious, but obviously I am not going to redefine determinism for such a petty thing as that. Don't be absurd.

[peacegirl]

That makes sense as a reply to what I wrote. And the text you supplied has nothing to do with the actual objection that your thing is an attempt to prove a tautology. Nor that the claim you make repeatedly that if man's will were free he would be able to act against his own wishes is demonstrated untrue by the tautological observation that every action is always to be interpreted as an expression of the actors wishes. You have been consistently too stupid to understand these points. My point was never that tautologies are useless. You just Googled for something to throw at me and all you found was an essay about them not being useless so you fooled yourself that was an argument against me.

PEACEGIRL: You are basically in agreement with me because you admit that a person cannot go against his own wishes (which in my parlance means "cannot go against what gives him greater satisfaction). It is in keeping with having no free will, for we cannot go against our own wishes or what gives us greater satisfaction, making any other option than the one chosen, a realistic mirage. While we are considering option A or B before a choice is made, it is still under consideration, but after a choice is made, any other choice was an impossibility because it would have gone against one's wishes or would have given less satisfaction under the conditions. We are basically on the same page, but you, for some reason, don't like the idea that will is not free.

If I say something is obvious and a tautology, I am not "admitting" it. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever that a person cannot go against their own will except by impossibly willing to go against their own will. That is true irrespective of whether free will applies or does not. I am astonished that you still don't get this. Even if I have been overestimating your talent, you should have got there by now.

PEACEGIRL: I am beginning to think that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not even a tautology at all because it's not a repetition in the same sentence.

https://helpfulprofessor.com/tautology-examples/

How can a person will to go against their own will when that is impossible? No matter how you slice it, we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, even when we think we're not. Let's go back to the definition being used and go from there.

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.

FB: A tautology is already explained. That is by definition, tautologies are self-explanatory and self-proving, truths by definition have those features. So if you try to prove a tautology you don't explain or prove anything. Your argument attempts to prove a tautology. It gains no explanatory power by doing so. The whole life moves in a direction bit would need something beyond the tautology part to have any explanatory power. Perhaps your dad did understand and it's just that you don't... because he wrote the specious thing about life always following a path of satisfaction and you cut that down to just a detail of human psychology. His thing goes beyond the tautology. Your version of it doesn't. This is of course a trap, I don't want you to think I was being tricky with you. If you change your tack and go back to the wording in the book, you still have a shit argument, I just use something else against it.

But please tell me you at least understand the very simple tautology objection now. This is just absurd that I can't get such a simple piece of information into you.

PEACEGIRL: I've been using the wording in the book. The thing you leave out is that being that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, means that any other alternative that we were considering could not have occurred. We are not free to choose A or B equally (or alternatively) as long as there are meaningful differences that push us to choose one thing over another in the direction of satisfaction.

This is just suffocating. I am not ignoring the greatest satisfaction thing, I am saying that it adds nothing and explains nothing and is not worth the bother of writing about. It amounts to a nothing on top of a tautology and the tautology completely explains everything that the "principle" in question purports to explain rendering it redundant. It is nothing but a rhetorical device and I have no need of it, nor does anybody else.

I get what you're saying regarding tautologies

You clearly don't. You are failing miserably at this.

but choosing B over A (based on motivation and desire), matters more than whatever is chosen is chosen and therefore tautological with no explanatory power. Choosing B in this instance (not to shoot the gun at someone) is not a free one because, given the exact same conditions, he could not have chosen A (to shoot the gun at someone). Again, proof will come one day when it is seen that man cannot hurt another with a first blow when it becomes the least desirable choice.

"when it becomes the least desirable choice".... quite. I have no reason to find your description of how that would come about remotely persuasive.

PEACEGIRL: Of course it's not persuasive; you haven't seen how the two-sided equation plays out in real life. Once this knowledge is confirmed valid and sound, scientists will be able to carry on from there. There may be some slight changes in some of the extension, but the basic principle or corollary works, given this new environment.

FB: For the rest, I am not interested in fishing your text out of the middle of posts. Just do your writing at the end of the post, you aren't able to do better, so that is your best, do your best please.

PEACEGIRL: I got your quotes right, but my posts fell under your quotes also. Could you take a screenshot of what I'm doing wrong? That would help a lot.

FB: This forum doesn't support images. Everyone except you can manage this simple thing. I have already pointed out that your instinct is always to open a new quote tag to write your new stuff into. CLOSE THE TABS INSTEAD. Never type "[quote=peacegirl]" ever again. Just type [/quote] to close the currently open tag.

I didn't realize the forum doesn't support images. When I left the front quote open and closed the end quote, my response ended up under your quotes. I am sure it's an easy fix, but everything I have tried doesn't nest the right things. I don't want my posts to be misread either.

FD: What do you think quote even means? I quote Hume and Kant, I don't quote me. Why do you think you should keep quoting yourself instead of pausing your quote of somebody else? How deeply self-obsessed are you?

That's enough instruction, you should be able to sort this out.

PEACEGIRL: I don't want to quote myself. I want to give a response, that's all, but so far these tags are confusing to me. I also tried to go to other threads, but it doesn't show me where I am going wrong. Is there a youtube video I could look at?

FB: Your dad tries to have his cake and eat it too by having one argument pose as every sort of different argument there is so that it is impossible to discern any actual logic in it at all. You make matters worse when you say he doesn't use philosophical argument in one sentence but then lay claim to deductive reasoning in another. That you still can't work out why this is a problem speaks ill of your chances.

PEACEGIRL: He demonstrates his position, but he doesn't argue it in the way you are expecting. I tried to show you what propositions were necessary for his claim to be true. First, he explains that determinism cannot be defined as the past causes the present only because the past doesn't exist except in memory. Let's start there. If you can accept this, then I can help explain why it was necessary to tweak the standard definition to make it more accurate.

FD: If you understand how the argument I am not seeing works, write your version of it. If you can't do that, then you don't understand it any better than I do.

PEACEGIRL: I do understand it, but like you said, it needs to be broken down one premise at a time or else you will think "he wants his cake and eat it too." I want to see some agreement based on his premises, so I can feel confident that we can move forward. So far, I have been disappointed that anyone even understands his reasoning. Greater satisfaction is the direction we are compelled to go. It's all the same, but some differences are obviously more important. Deciding on what to eat for breakfast, cereal or eggs, doesn't have the same import as what university to go to, even though both may require contemplation.

FD: Just explain. If I have to be infatuated with the argument before I can be allowed to know what it is, there's something wrong with the argument that you want hide from me. You keep conflating not agreeing with your presentation as failure to comprehend it, stop that, it's silly.

PEACEGIRL: Flashdangerpants, I am not conflating not agreeing with a failure to comprehend it. You don't agree because you don't comprehend it. Please don't say you do because you really don't. I am just being honest. I posted the entire three chapters for you. How can you tell me that you are not allowed to know what it is? I can't do more than I already have. What is going to happen is that you'll be bored with this whole thread and all of this will be for naught. But it won't be my fault.

FD: And in reference to that criticism that you cannot distinguish whether a claim is meant to be scientific (which means inductive), deductive or mathematical in type, telling me that it is both inductive and deductive is the second stupidest answer you could possibly assemble.

PEACEGIRL: I never said that there was no distinguishing between inductive, deductive, or mathematical in type. He interchanged the three words: mathematical, scientific, and undeniable throughout the book and he didn't want to confuse anyone. He used these words synonymously in contrast to theory, opinion, or hypothesis. He prefaced it this way to make sure people would not tear these words apart like you're doing.[/quote]

FD: Well that's not what the sentence you are replying to even says that you said, so please read and comprehend prior to responding. It's bad enough with the quote thing, but constantly ignoring what I actually wrote to complain about something I didn't write is irritating beyond measure.

PEACEGIRL: I'm sorry. I know this is not the best way I'm doing this. I wish someone was sitting next to me to show me what I'm missing.

FD: Those competing logics are not the same thing. They cannot become the same thing for all intents and purposes by just speaking the words, logic doesn't work that way. If an argument proceeds by mathematical reason towards some conclusion, then the working out in mathematical form is relevant. If the argument proceeds by scientific reason towards some conclusion, then the experimental data is required. And if an argument proceeds according to deductive (undeniable) conclusion, then a deductive argument of great strength is required for that. If nobody can tell which logic you used to get to the conclusion, then your argument is a failure.

You will never get anywhere if you don't deal with this problem. Trying to blame me will never help you.

PEACEGIRL: I am not blaming you. I understand what you're saying, but he prefaced his book the way he did for his reasons. He knew definitions of words could become problematic, so he was trying to prevent confusion. I can't take it up with him because he's not here, and I'm not going to change his wording. Hopefully, you will not hold it against him and will allow him to present his findings before jumping to the conclusion that the book has no value. He did say that this knowledge is not logic. He certainly knew what he was up against.

He wrote: The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years.

FD: You are doing a shit job of selling the book, the sales figures will confirm that. I don't need to stop treating you like an idiot, you need to stop being one. It's not my concern to make you feel that your shitty book selling is a valuable enterprise that you should be congratulated for, what kind of grown adult needs participation trophies?

PEACEGIRL: I am not asking for any congratulations or some kind of trophy. It just hurts that there is knowledge here that can literally change our world for the better, and you're throwing it away.[/quote]

FD: It's you that is throwing it away though. You've done this conversation how many times? With me only once. It always goes the same way doesn't it? With you just pasting slices of text from a badly written book and people rejecting it for various reasons. You never learned to explain it better, you never developed any of the themes. You did nothing useful as it sank beneath the waves. But you are going to whine at me about it because you are always a victim.

PEACEGIRL: What do you man I never developed any of the themes. The rest of the book from Chapter Four to Eleven is the development of the entire theme. Please stop using these forums as proof that I haven't tried hard enough. He made a huge claim that people are skeptical about. I understand that but it goes even deeper. He was an unknown. I'm here on a forum that doesn't usually have someone making big claims like this. It probably sounds absurd. I wish I could contact people who would read this book objectively and give it a fair and balanced review. It will take people who are well versed on this topic, which is not easy.

FD" I don't need to go back over the work yet again and show you where it was wrong. I already did that, and so far the impediment has been your ability to read and comprehend. I cannot make you stop being a dimwit by reading the same drivel yet again. The best I could do is find some new argument to use against it, but why would I need one given the state of your understanding of the existing issues?

PEACEGIRL: I have to believe that your need to throw more and more expletives at me is beyond your ability to control. It's sad that you have to do this because it's really not nice. You say you don't need to go over the work yet again, yet I don't see where you went over it the first time. Tell me what his discovery is. I can almost guarantee that you did not carefully read Chapter Two, which is really interesting. It's unfortunate. I have an understanding of the existing issues, but I cannot get through to you for some reason. If you can accept that we live in the present; therefore, the entire definition of determinism is inaccurate because the past can't cause us to do anything in a linear fashion, then I have something to go on.

FD: The past participle of exist is existed, so the reason why the past doesn't exist is that it is in the past, where it existed. In the past. Past tense. The causation of the now arrives from the past and continues into the future. Trying to make an epiphany out of semantic nothings from grammatical tenses is hilarious, but obviously I am not going to redefine determinism for such a petty thing as that. Don't be absurd.

PEACEGIRL: It isn't semantics FlashDangerpants. It is important because the past cannot cause the present. Everything happens in the present. What happened in the past is a memory that is used IN THE PRESENT to connect what happened to what is happening in the here and now. This has important implications for how we can increase "moral" responsibility.

[FlashDangerpants]

If I say something is obvious and a tautology, I am not "admitting" it. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever that a person cannot go against their own will except by impossibly willing to go against their own will. That is true irrespective of whether free will applies or does not. I am astonished that you still don't get this. Even if I have been overestimating your talent, you should have got there by now.

How can a person will to go against their own will when that is impossible?

It is specifically because you write stuff like this that I call you stupid.

[peacegirl]

If I say something is obvious and a tautology, I am not "admitting" it. It has no bearing on free will whatsoever that a person cannot go against their own will except by impossibly willing to go against their own will. That is true irrespective of whether free will applies or does not. I am astonished that you still don't get this. Even if I have been overestimating your talent, you should have got there by now.

How can a person will to go against their own will when that is impossible?

It is specifically because you write stuff like this that I call you stupid.

Where did "admitting it" enter into it? I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying a person cannot go against their own will except by willing to go against their own will. I missed "impossibly", the most important word. This is correct and shows that, regardless of how you define free will, going against what you find preferable, is impossible. Given a person's environment and genetics only leads them in one direction, not two. Free will states that a person can go in both directions because there is no compulsion either way, which is impossible. I hope you can ruminate on this and see the truth before screaming "foul".

[FlashDangerpants]

How can a person will to go against their own will when that is impossible?

It is specifically because you write stuff like this that I call you stupid.

Where did "admitting it" enter into it?

OMG, what is the deal with you? You wrote "You are basically in agreement with me because you admit that a person cannot go against his own wishes" that is a quote from you, you utter buffoon.

I may have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying a person cannot go against their own will except by willing to go against their own will. I missed "impossibly", the most important word.

Erm, I should have felt safe to leave the word impossibly out of it to be honest, it shouldn't need saying, it is obvious beyond words. You make no effort to understand what other people write because you have already hit reply before you get there, just like age does. You are clumsy and lazy and can barely read.

This is correct and shows that, regardless of how you define free will, going against what you find preferable, is impossible. Given a person's environment and genetics only leads them in one direction, not two. Free will states that a person can go in both directions because there is no compulsion either way, which is impossible. I hope you can ruminate on this and see the truth before screaming "foul".

My God you are stupid. I have already explained this thing, you have had an unreasonable number of opportunities, there is no useful question to be answered. I am now going to just mock you and nothing more.

[Atla]

Will and satisfaction are two different things. Satisfaction is felt, will typically isn't felt.

The author says (imo) that we can't will to go against what we think is our best satisfaction. Not that we can't will to go against our will, willing to go against our will would just be a self-contradiction, so it would make no sense to try to show that we can't do it. (Unless I missed it and he did argue that, which would be hilarious.)