Philosophy Now Forum

In answering moral questions, there are a variety of frameworks one may use. One such framework is utilitarianism, which considers those actions that bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people to be moral. There are numerous problems with such a framework, not the least of which is that it is impossible to figure out what does cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number in numerous situations. Why is it ever important to seek satisfaction for the "greatest number"? What does that even mean? If we make half the population very happy by doing X, but make 60% of the population somewhat happy by doing Y, which number should we use to decide on whether we should do X or Y? No one knows, and there's no way of knowing.

Why not avoid all the unnecessary confusion created by utilitarianism and simply focus on specific harms caused by our acts? After all, I can argue against rape by pointing out that rape harms a person and a rapist merely wanting to rape someone does not provide a rational justification for the act of rape. Do I really have to show that rape is immoral by engaging in a utilitarian calculation? I don't think so.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am In answering moral questions, there are a variety of frameworks one may use.

There is only one RIGHT framework to use in answering moral questions. That framework, or method, is made up by a formula. All other frameworks do not work, as far as I am aware.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am One such framework is utilitarianism, which considers those actions that bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people to be moral.

How could utilitarianism not be moral?

Being moral is utilitarian.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am There are numerous problems with such a framework, not the least of which is that it is impossible to figure out what does cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number in numerous situations.

But it is not impossible to figure that out at all. In fact realizing what creates happiness for all in all situations is very easy in deed.

By the way you suggest there are numerous problems with utilitarianism, can you provide a list of these "problems" so that we can take a look at them, and discuss. I can not see any problem whatsoever.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am Why is it ever important to seek satisfaction for the "greatest number"?

I will answer that with questions,
Why should some be satisfied and some not be satisfied?
Why would you seek to satisfy some only?
How many do you seek satisfaction for?
Why not seek satisfaction for all?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am What does that even mean?

You asked the question, so I guess you are the one who really knows what "that" means. I am not exactly sure of what part of that question you are referring to, or if it is all of it. But if you can not think of any reason why it would ever be important to seek satisfaction, then maybe it would be best to ask yourself that question, AND answer it.
Why do you find it important to seek satisfaction? (Or, do you never seek satisfaction?) AND,
Why do you find it important to seek satisfaction for others? (Or, do you never seek satisfaction for others?)

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 am If we make half the population very happy by doing X, but make 60% of the population somewhat happy by doing Y, which number should we use to decide on whether we should do X or Y? No one knows, and there's no way of knowing.

Are you suggesting here that you are unsure of what 'greatest number' means? And, that no one else knows and that there is no way of knowing this?

I certainly hope not, because the answer is plainly obvious. If I know the answer, then any one else can find it, and know it also.

Have a guess, What number should we use to decide on whether we should do any thing?

By the way, How do you differentiate between 'very happy' and 'somewhat happy'? While you are at it can you define, What is 'happy' for us?

These things, and more, need to be looked, discussed, defined, agreed upon, and accepted before you can even begin to understand all of this. If you are truly wanting to understand, then you will continue to discuss with Me. But if you just want to push your agenda and push what you believe is true, then just continue on the way you are.

Ah, I just worked out what could be causing the confusion for human beings. Do you (human beings) think 60% of the population is the 'greatest number'?

If so, that is probably why you have all been so confused for so long.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 amWhy not avoid all the unnecessary confusion created by utilitarianism and simply focus on specific harms caused by our acts?

But there is NO confusion at all. Not for Me anyway. And, if you want to fully understand morality, then you will stop being closed, and open up.

1. There is no confusion created by utilitarianism.
2. The confusion you, and others have, was/is created by the way you are looking at this.
3. Trying to blame the so called "unnecessary" confusion on something else may help to persuade others to follow your beliefs for a little
while but ultimately it will not help you in the end. And,
4. Labeling the confusion, which is actually yours, as "unnecessary" was unnecessary.

The reason you are unnecessarily confused is because of the narrow and closed way you are viewing this.

Now, if you want to focus on specific harms caused by human beings behaviors, then let us look at and discuss this.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:29 amAfter all, I can argue against rape by pointing out that rape harms a person and a rapist merely wanting to rape someone does not provide a rational justification for the act of rape. Do I really have to show that rape is immoral by engaging in a utilitarian calculation? I don't think so.

Could you be wrong?

Have you looked at and considered ALL scenarios?

Are you 100% certain that you can make a sound and valid argument against rape by pointing out that rape harms a person, and, a person who rapes another can not provide a rational justification for the act of rape?

To show how rape is truly immoral a utilitarian calculation is actually needed. In fact to show what is truly moral behavior and immoral behavior a utilitarian framework is actually needed.

If you would like to discuss "rape" further, then we can, and discussing rape with other things will lead Me to showing what does cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number in not just numerous situations but in any and ALL situations. Depending on your ability, and length of time to stay with this, and your amount of openness, I can eventually show what is actually right and wrong behavior for ALL.

If you want to continue discussing "rape", then provide your arguments and I will quickly show the faults and inconsistencies in them.

Utilitarianism leads to immoral conclusions. We know this from the Trolley problems. Most people will pull a lever to direct a run-away train onto a side track, so the train only kills one person instead of five. However, when asked whether they would shove a fat man onto the tracks, to save five people, by killing one, most people answer the question in the negative. According to the utilitarian calculus, the answer to both questions should be the same; yet, they are not, which means that in addressing issues regarding morality, something else is going on besides a utilitarian calculus. In fact, we know from neurobiology, that in answering these two questions, different parts of the brain light up.

In addition to utilitarianism, there is virtue ethics, there is an ethical position that addresses moral issues through concepts of rights and duties. Those are just two other moral frameworks that are in common use, besides utilitarianism.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:36 pm Utilitarianism leads to immoral conclusions. We know this from the Trolley problems. Most people will pull a lever to direct a run-away train onto a side track, so the train only kills one person instead of five. However, when asked whether they would shove a fat man onto the tracks, to save five people, by killing one, most people answer the question in the negative. According to the utilitarian calculus, the answer to both questions should be the same; yet, they are not, which means that in addressing issues regarding morality, something else is going on besides a utilitarian calculus. In fact, we know from neurobiology, that in answering these two questions, different parts of the brain light up.

In addition to utilitarianism, there is virtue ethics, there is an ethical position that addresses moral issues through concepts of rights and duties. Those are just two other moral frameworks that are in common use, besides utilitarianism.

If you want to discuss this way and not answer one of My seventeen or so questions, then so be it. But you have not proved any thing here, other than your ability to completely ignore Me.

You appear to not have taken any thing I have said into account. You appear to only want to express your beliefs, and try to persuade others that you know what is right and best. You say that you can argue about rape but did not continue on with it when I questioned and challenged you on this. Now you just want to bring up other scenarios, with supposedly more "problems" from the framework of utilitarianism. The beliefs you are trying to hold onto dearly are glaringly obvious, and if you do not want to look at and discuss the truth of things, then continue on the merry way you are now. The only person you are fooling here is you.

However, if you want to argue your point, which you said you can, then continue on from the first "point" you were trying to make. But considering it was so obviously unsound and invalid I am not surprised you have tried to move onto other matters.

I said previously, and it still stands;

"If you would like to discuss "rape" further, then we can, and discussing rape with other things will lead Me to showing what does cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number in not just numerous situations but in any and ALL situations. Depending on your ability, and length of time to stay with this, and your amount of openness, I can eventually show what is actually right and wrong behavior for ALL.

If you want to continue discussing "rape", then provide your arguments and I will quickly show the faults and inconsistencies in them."

But you appear to be so totally confused that you come across as completely blinded, which somewhat explains why you ignored absolutely everything I said and just went on trying to say the exact same thing of what you believe is right, but this time through another example.

Utilitarianism is NOT unnecessarily broad. The problem here is your viewpoint is unnecessarily narrow, to the point of being non-existent. I gave away a few clues as to what the 'greatest number' actually means, without actually stipulating that number. I did this in the hope you could work out the answer by yourself. Since you were confused about this I tried to help you find and discover the answer yourself. I know how satisfying it is to come to discovering answers by, and for, yourself. But as it appears nothing lit up any part of that brain, and the reason for this is another great discovery most would like to make. How the Mind and the brain actually work is very enlightening.

Anyway, now, do you want to continue on from your first post and have a truly open-ended, two-way, logical discussion where we can both learn more? Or, do you just want to ignore what I ask and say and continue to only express what you believe is true, right, and correct, whilst thinking to yourself that what you are writing is logical, sound, and valid? Or, do you want Me to now respond only and directly to your last reply, and then we will have to wait and see which way you go? Your choice. What do you want? You started this thread, so which way do you want to go?

My point actually did address all of the points you made --- it took out your underlying assumption.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:36 pm Utilitarianism leads to immoral conclusions. We know this from the Trolley problems. Most people will pull a lever to direct a run-away train onto a side track, so the train only kills one person instead of five. However, when asked whether they would shove a fat man onto the tracks, to save five people, by killing one, most people answer the question in the negative. According to the utilitarian calculus, the answer to both questions should be the same; yet, they are not, which means that in addressing issues regarding morality, something else is going on besides a utilitarian calculus. In fact, we know from neurobiology, that in answering these two questions, different parts of the brain light up.

In addition to utilitarianism, there is virtue ethics, there is an ethical position that addresses moral issues through concepts of rights and duties. Those are just two other moral frameworks that are in common use, besides utilitarianism.

The difference between pushing someone on to a track and pulling a level is clearly not a moral consideration but a practical one - fear of physical conflict. You might hope the fat man makes his own sacrifice and becomes a hero (or better still, thinks of a last minute non-destructive solution). Then again, the fat man may figure that your mass will be sufficient to stop the trolley!

These musings aside, the fat man is a personality in front of you. You might see the whites of his eyes as he faces the final dread that we all know deep down. You might think of his friends and families. His Mum, wife, kids, dog, colleagues, friends and confidantes. However, when you pull a lever (physical or economic) you reduce all that to an object, with nothing to call to mind the depth of the thing you will extinguish.

With a lever, rather than six humans, to some extent you have six valuable abstract objects and the math is obvious. If we think of human societies being culturally selected as species are naturally selected, then the utilitarian approach should do well.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:29 pm My point actually did address all of the points you made --- it took out your underlying assumption.

And what is my supposed underlying assumption?

By the way you still have not answered one of My questions. So, you have not addressed the points you made. The only thing you addressed is what you believe.

Ken, You are not paying attention and are simply in denial about the state of affairs. You stated that there Is only one moral framework, and you claim this single framework is utilitarianism. This is simply not true, and is empirically false. Not only that, but I gave one example where utilitarianism fails to account for moral-decision making. Since all of your questions were premised on the assumption that utilitarianism was the end all and be all of morality, my point did address every single question raised by you.

Greta, You stated that if we are culturally selected, as opposed to biologically selected, then utilitarianism should do well. The problem is that there is a human nature, it would be rather odd if after billions of years of evolution to get where we are at that biology did not play a roll, and a significant one, in culture, as well as moral issues. One of the reasons I think utilitarianism is largely useless is because it runs up against basic biology. Parents favor their children, which makes sense, given evolution. Yet, according to utilitarianism, parents should not favor their children, and should give their resources to create the greatest happiness overall. No one does this. It's as if people are walking around with blinders ignoring the fact that parents favor children, families favor each other over distant strangers. At least Confucius was in line with basic biology --- he believed that morality starts with the family, then moves outward from there; in other words, we tend to favor those closer to us than those far removed from us.

Another puzzling aspect about utilitarianism is that no one can do an actual calculation. What would be the mathematical model that we should use? No one has devised one. It's simply used as a smokescreen so that people can claim their personal, subjective views, should be taken as more objective than they are.

While I will agree that biology does not determine morality, it is a relevant fact in moral thinking. To come up with a system of morality that requires parents to not favor their kids is likely to fail and create a lot of hypocrisy.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmGreta, You stated that if we are culturally selected, as opposed to biologically selected, then utilitarianism should do well. The problem is that there is a human nature, it would be rather odd if after billions of years of evolution to get where we are at that biology did not play a roll, and a significant one, in culture, as well as moral issues.

Yes, biology originally formed our moralities. Studies suggest appearance of morality at an age before a baby can even it up; morality is genetically hard-wired into us and it's easy to see why - populations not interested in cooperating with each other, always at loggerheads and full of infighting, cannot compete with more cooperative societies.

Science Fan wrote: One of the reasons I think utilitarianism is largely useless is because it runs up against basic biology. Parents favor their children, which makes sense, given evolution. Yet, according to utilitarianism, parents should not favor their children, and should give their resources to create the greatest happiness overall.

Utilitarianism is far from useless; rather it's increasingly the future as people continue their journey in the eyes of leader from personalities to just numbers.

What happens at the personal level is virtually irrelevant when considering the powerful society-wide forces involved. People can look after their own all they like, but if states and/or powerful political cartels of multinationals decide to implement policy, there is nothing the people can do. One problem situation is the use of utilitarianism to rationalise selfish behaviour by the wealthy, eg. justifying selfish and damaging projects by talking up job creation.

Thing is, when dealing with millions of people, what is the alternative the utilitarianism?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:47 pm Ken, You are not paying attention and are simply in denial about the state of affairs.

Do not be so sure of yourself here. I might be paying far more attention than you presume I have been here. I can easily prove that you are the one who has not been paying attention to the actual words that I have been writing.

Explain exactly what is the 'state of affairs' here that you are talking about, then we can see if I am in denial of it or not. If you do not supply it, then I am not going to assume what it is. The 'state of affairs' that I notice here is NOT the 'state of affairs' you want Me to see and follow.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:47 pm You stated that there Is only one moral framework, and you claim this single framework is utilitarianism. This is simply not true, and is empirically false.

What is truly false here is your perception of what I am writing and saying. You are so far wrong here. What I did say was, "There is only one RIGHT framework to use in answering moral questions. That framework, or method, is made up by a formula. All other frameworks do not work, as far as I am aware." There is NO claiming at all that the one moral framework is utilitarianism.

I purposely wrote that the way I did so that you would make the assumption you have made. Then I could show how wrong your assumptions are.I also wanted to show others how, when and where human beings make assumptions BEFORE they ask for clarification to gain what IS actually true, right, and correct. You do this in order to fool yourself that what you believe is true, right, and correct. I will show out your assumption for what it really is.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:47 pmNot only that, but I gave one example where utilitarianism fails to account for moral-decision making.

But you did NOT give any example of where utilitarianism fails to account for moral-decision making. All you did was just make an assumption and jumped to a wrong conclusion, based on your own previously held distorted beliefs.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:47 pm Since all of your questions were premised on the assumption that utilitarianism was the end all and be all of morality, my point did address every single question raised by you.

I have NEVER made an assumption that utilitarianism was the end all and be all of morality. Again, what I did say was, "There is only one RIGHT framework to use in answering moral questions. That framework, or method, is made up by a formula." If you had shown any curiosity, then you would have asked something like, What is that framework, and/or What is that formula? But you did not. What you did do is just jumped straight into the assumption that I was referring to utilitarianism. I wanted you to do that, and I knew you would do it. I needed you to do it so I have more evidence about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and how much control the Mind can have over the brain. You are not yet aware, but you are only using the brain here, thus the reason I can control what you do so easily.

Now for the matter of you assuming that My questions were premised on an assumption. I clearly stated, "All other frameworks do not work, as far as I am aware." So, this means that "There is only one RIGHT framework (which sorry is NOT utilitarianism as you assume and believe it to be) AND that that framework is the only one that I know of that works, which just means that that one framework is the ONLY one that I know of that works. I am still completely open to other ones, if they exist.

You ARE making assumptions, which are clearly and obviously wrong and false, without ever asking Me clarifying questions.

You even made the assumption and wrote, "..., my point did address every single question raised by you", which is totally incorrect. If you want to truly address every single question raised by Me, then you would answer every single question asked by Me.

The very reason I asked you so many clarifying questions is so that I do not assume anything. I also do this because if you answered My questions willingly, honestly and from a truly open perspective, then it will become obvious to all here, including yourself, just how confused you really are.

You have even "asked", "What does that even mean", in relation to the 'greatest number' and made a huge assumption that no one knows what that number is. But because you believe you know the answer already you were not openly asking the question. You were just trying to state a "fact" that you believe is true. I replied by asking clarifying questions like, "Are you suggesting here that you are unsure of what 'greatest number' means? And, that no one else knows and that there is no way of knowing this?

I certainly hope not, because the answer is plainly obvious. If I know the answer, then any one else can find it, and know it also".

Besides the fact that you did NOT address any one of My questions, if you were at least a bit open and curious you would have asked Me some thing like, If the greatest number is plainly obvious, then what is it then? But because you have not this is just more proof and evidence of how the brain works. The brain will NOT look at what COULD be true, when it already believes it knows what IS true.

Now that you have provided for Me enough evidence and proof of what I was seeking, would you like to further investigate your ridiculous example of how utilitarianism does not work?

If you do, then let us start with what the 'greatest number' actually means. The greatest number obviously IS ALL. So, if any moral examples given have to have ALL at the forefront of thought. The examples you give are ridiculous in that what a human being would do when asked what they would do could be completely different and even completely opposite of what they would do if they were actually in that scenario. Further to this, there are so many other variables they you have neglected to add, which would have a huge influence on what I would do, anyway.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm Greta, You stated that if we are culturally selected, as opposed to biologically selected, then utilitarianism should do well. The problem is that there is a human nature, it would be rather odd if after billions of years of evolution to get where we are at that biology did not play a roll, and a significant one, in culture, as well as moral issues. One of the reasons I think utilitarianism is largely useless is because it runs up against basic biology. Parents favor their children, which makes sense, given evolution.

Wrong assumption. NOT all parents favor their children. And,
If parents treated all equally, instead of favoring their own children, then that would make living on earth a better place.
Making living on earth a better place would in fact favor one's own children.
Therefore, if parents wanted to truly favor their own children, then they would treat ALL equally.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmYet, according to utilitarianism, parents should not favor their children, and should give their resources to create the greatest happiness overall.

What is wrong with this?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm No one does this.

Just because, allegedly, no one does this. Does that make this right?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm It's as if people are walking around with blinders ignoring the fact that parents favor children, families favor each other over distant strangers.

Obviously most do this, but saying it the way you do is ignoring the actual fact that NOT all parents favor their own children and NOT all families favor each other. I certainly do not do that, well from the perspective that you assume who I am that is.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm At least Confucius was in line with basic biology --- he believed that morality starts with the family, then moves outward from there; in other words, we tend to favor those closer to us than those far removed from us.

But who exactly is close to "us"? Who, and how many, are close to you? To Me no one is closer nor further away than another, so that is why I do not favor one over another.

By the way 'closer' can mean in physical distance and not just in biological terms. People who are more familiar can also be more 'family like' than a "family" member is.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmAnother puzzling aspect about utilitarianism is that no one can do an actual calculation.

Again, contrary to what you believe is true, there is NO puzzling aspect about utilitarianism that I can see.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmWhat would be the mathematical model that we should use?

100% of the people 100% of the time 100% all over the place. Simple really.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmNo one has devised one.

I have. If you stopped making assumptions, then you will stop looking foolish.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pm It's simply used as a smokescreen so that people can claim their personal, subjective views, should be taken as more objective than they are.

What is supposedly simply used as a smokescreen?

Could you be the one who is actually trying to put up a "smokescreen" to conceal the truth, and while doing this you are also trying to make your own personal, subjective beliefs seem more believable?

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmWhile I will agree that biology does not determine morality, it is a relevant fact in moral thinking.

Every thing is a relevant fact in moral thinking because morality can have an affect on every thing. Therefore, biology can be brought into the discussion, but biology certainly does not influence moral thinking/decisions. Human beings have "advanced" far "away" from all other animals, if they had not, then their behaviors would be the same as all other animals are. That is just trying to stay alive. Other animals do not think about what is morally right and wrong. Only human beings do. So, human beings do not just behave like other animals do. Human beings think about what they kill and destroy and what influence that impact could have on others. So, biological evolution plays a much lesser aspect of morality, and conscience and conscious evolution plays a much bigger part.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 pmTo come up with a system of morality that requires parents to not favor their kids is likely to fail and create a lot of hypocrisy.

More assumptions that are completely wrong.

1. Human beings do not come up with a "system" of morality. Just doing what is right and not doing what is wrong is morality. How to actually work out what is right and what is wrong is another matter, which until you become far more open you are a long way of discovering and learning what this is exactly.
2. No thing can "require" to not favor their kids. Parents either want to do what is right and best for their own kids or they do not. I have already shown what actually favors one's own kids.
3. Favoring ALL equally is NOT likely to fail because no one would be disadvantaged.
4. Choosing to favor some over favoring ALL is hypocrisy at the highest level. Choosing to favor ALL equally is NOT hypocritical at all. No one could claim to have higher standards or be more noble than others if ALL are treated equally and the same, obviously.

Ken, your so-called mathematical model of utilitarianism is laughable on its face. No one could apply such a formula. The fact you cannot provide a formula that can be used to calculate moral decision-making under utilitarianism helps to prove my point --- utilitarianism adds nothing to moral decision making. It can't even produce a coherent formula people can use. It simply provides a smokescreen so that people's subjective moral opinions can be passed off as something objective.

Your statement about people merely do what is right and then look for some justification for their decision is question begging, a fallacy. While it is true that people often reach a decision about a moral issue based on an intuition, it does not follow that such decisions are morally right, or wrong. That's where your question begging comes in to play.

Greta, How can utilitarianism be the wave of the future, when it is so at odds with basic human nature? When no one, including you, can offer an actual formula that we can use to even apply the utilitarian calculation? The reason why utilitarianism cannot work, as a matter of principle, is simple: It is impossible to weigh one-person's happiness against another's. It may be possible to weigh one person's happiness over a range of various options and determine what, for that specific person, makes him happy, and what adds to or decreases his happiness, but it is impossible to weigh one person's happiness against another's. Utilitarianism cannot even get out of the starting blocks, much less pave the way for our future.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:14 pm Ken, your so-called mathematical model of utilitarianism is laughable on its face. No one could apply such a formula. The fact you cannot provide a formula that can be used to calculate moral decision-making under utilitarianism helps to prove my point --- utilitarianism adds nothing to moral decision making. It can't even produce a coherent formula people can use. It simply provides a smokescreen so that people's subjective moral opinions can be passed off as something objective.

Are you trying prove in your writings exactly how people's subjective moral opinions interfere with objectivity? If you are, you have done a very successful job.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:14 pmYour statement about people merely do what is right and then look for some justification for their decision is question begging, a fallacy. While it is true that people often reach a decision about a moral issue based on an intuition, it does not follow that such decisions are morally right, or wrong. That's where your question begging comes in to play.

It appears you have Me all worked out and I can not get anything past you. So, according to YOU. YOU are right and I am wrong, once again.

If however on the very slightest of chances that may just not be right after all, then I willing to discuss any of this much further and with much greater detail if you like. All you have to do is ask Me for some clarity instead of continually trying to express that I am wrong. But I would not be surprised if this does not occur and it is your beliefs that prevent you from being the slightest bit open.