New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

How do you know what is visible to everyone? Did you take a poll? You have a grudge against me and the author, it's as simple as that, probably because you hate the idea that man's will IS NOT FREE. That I saved your instructions for later, and the fact that you are using this against me is pure stupidity on your part. This long thread has gotten nowhere when time could have been much better spent if you had shown even a tiny bit of interest, but no, you won't even engage with the excerpt I posted for your convenience. All you keep saying is that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology. So what. This alone doesn't disprove that we don't have free will. I could never move on because of this one mistake on your part.

It isn't necessarily obvious to every single person that you are stupid. Some small portion of them are stupider than you, probably about 10%.

I have no real interest in you or your book or its author, I certainly don't care enough to harbour a grudge sufficient to make me overlook any work of genius, that is the sort of assumption a truly stupid person would make.

You shouldn't need to save instructions, the task if triflingly simple.

I gave you pages and pages of attention and you wasted that. It is over. All you did was tell me I hadn't read stuff, then that I hadn't read it properly, and then that you couldn't possibly explain anything about it, you could only paste the same stuff again. You don't get another chance unless you somehow write something really interesting. You are not currently approaching that level.

That you never understood the tautology thing even when I really did find a fool proof way to explain it speaks to your utter stupidity. You yourself proposed a test - that if man had free will, he could will to an end that was against his own wishes - the tautological fact that what one wishes for is the same as what one wills shows that this is not true. You are too stupid even to understand that sentence. I cannot accept responsibility for that problem, nor do I propose to attempt any further fixes for it.

I absolutely never said that any of what I offered demonstrates that our wills are free. Never, not once. You continually accuse me of it because you are too stupid to distinguish between my explaining why your argument for unfree will is shit and me arguing on behalf of free will. I have explained that clearly many times. If you can't understand it, I can't fix you, you must be intensely stupid.

[peacegirl]

How do you know what is visible to everyone? Did you take a poll? You have a grudge against me and the author, it's as simple as that, probably because you hate the idea that man's will IS NOT FREE. That I saved your instructions for later, and the fact that you are using this against me is pure stupidity on your part. This long thread has gotten nowhere when time could have been much better spent if you had shown even a tiny bit of interest, but no, you won't even engage with the excerpt I posted for your convenience. All you keep saying is that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology. So what. This alone doesn't disprove that we don't have free will. I could never move on because of this one mistake on your part.

It isn't necessarily obvious to every single person that you are stupid. Some small portion of them are stupider than you, probably about 10%.

PEACEGIRL: And you're the genius, right?

FLASHDANGERPANTS: I have no real interest in you or your book or its author, I certainly don't care enough to harbour a grudge sufficient to make me overlook any work of genius, that is the sort of assumption a truly stupid person would make.

PEACEGIRL: I think you do have a grudge, which is why you would overlook a work of genius, in fact.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: You shouldn't need to save instructions, the task if triflingly simple.

PEACEGIRL: I'm sure it is, but I'm not taking the time right now. For you to use this against this book is stupidity 101.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: I gave you pages and pages of attention and you wasted that. It is over.

PEACEGIRL: You could have fooled me. You only argued that he can't be right because it's a tautology, which does not disprove why this observation is significant. You didn't go any further than that. You don't even know what his discovery is.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: All you did was tell me I hadn't read stuff, then that I hadn't read it properly, and then that you couldn't possibly explain anything about it, you could only paste the same stuff again. You don't get another chance unless you somehow write something really interesting. You are not currently approaching that level.

PEACEGIRL:It would be interesting if you understood why the movement, in the direction of what offers us greater satisfaction from moment to moment, matters, for without this law of our nature, we could not prevent war, crime, and all the other evils plaguing humanity. I have bent over backwards to get you to understand, but you ruin it by name-calling. I'm a human being, ya know, even though I sit behind a computer. Why do you have to be so nasty?

FLASHDANGERPANTS: That you never understood the tautology thing even when I really did find a fool proof way to explain it speaks to your utter stupidity. You yourself proposed a test - that if man had free will, he could will to an end that was against his own wishes - the tautological fact that what one wishes for is the same as what one wills shows that this is not true. You are too stupid even to understand that sentence. I cannot accept responsibility for that problem, nor do I propose to attempt any further fixes for it.

PEACEGIRL: That's exactly right, and there's nothing wrong with explaining it that way. A person cannot move in the direction of what satisfies him the least because that would not be in keeping with what he wishes, and what he wishes is what he wills. I get it, but your saying that it's a useless tautology is absolutely false. Wouldn't it be nice if what one wishes and what one wills could never be what would hurt another? Please answer yes or no.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: I absolutely never said that any of what I offered demonstrates that our wills are free. Never, not once. You continually accuse me of it because you are too stupid to distinguish between my explaining why your argument for unfree will is shit and me arguing on behalf of free will. I have explained that clearly many times. If you can't understand it, I can't fix you, you must be intensely stupid.

PEACEGIRL: I never accused you of anything. I said I wasn't sure why you have closed your mind to hearing more. I still don't quite get why. Is it the fact that he said, for the purposes of his writing, not to get caught up with the interchangeability of the words "scientific, undeniable, and mathematical" to be distinguished from "an opinion, a conjecture, or a speculation?" Even if you don't like that he did that, this still does not in any way, shape, or form prove him wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

PEACEGIRL:
FLASHDANGERPANTS:
...

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

[peacegirl]

PEACEGIRL:
FLASHDANGERPANTS:
...

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

You're just being vindictive. What I wrote is clear. Isn't that the point whether I use a dialogue format or the quote function? You just won't let it go, will you? If you refuse to read my post, do what you must IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

[peacegirl]

Why are you being so spiteful FlashDangerpants, which is only hurting yourself. I asked an important question and I would hope you would not chicken out by not answering it. If my desire leads to my will to respond in a certain way, which we both agree to, and if that desire and will leads to not wantng to hurt anyone, would you say that is a good thing? Please don't go on about my stupidity, okay? Just answer the question: YES OR NO. My suspicion is you won't answer because you know you're checkmated. Stop playing games.

[peacegirl]

Where do I sign up?

Why are you laughing?

[peacegirl]

I believe the only way to give this discovery any credibility is to be given the opportunity to be in the magazine otherwise I’m banging my head against the wall.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Where do I sign up?

Why are you laughing?

It is part of my nature.

[peacegirl]

It’s very disturbing to me to let Flashdangerpants have the last word. Even if no one here is interested after his blunder, I at least will show where he was wrong. The same goes for Prometheus75, who stops the conversation because he can’t accept that Spinoza, although on the right track, did not have the full answer as to why his ethics failed to solve the key to world peace.

[peacegirl]

Where do I sign up?

Why are you laughing?

It is part of my nature.

That is true but I’m trying to get you to reconsider, as also part of your nature.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have paid no attention to the content of this thread.

[peacegirl]

I have paid no attention to the content of this thread.

Yes, it definitely appears that way!

[peacegirl]

I’d like to give this thread a little comic relief!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1J5Ur2 ... tid=wwXIfr

[FlashDangerpants]

The daily sad effort to reinflate this dead horse is bordering on necrophilia at this stage.

[peacegirl]

The daily sad effort to reinflate this dead horse is bordering on necrophilia at this stage.

Why are you stooping so low as a last ditch effort to try and prove me wrong when I have absolute proof on my side? If you can’t even engage in a give and take when I ask you a fair question, and you ignore me, something is fundamentally wrong —- and it’s not with me. I don’t kniw what it’s going to take for you to concede, but I am keeping the faith that you’ll finally say he was right all along!