Post-Randian Objectivism

[Piscivore]

That's more social contract than ethics.

Functionally, what is the difference? Ethics that are not practiced by a society are just wool-gathering, and all "social contracts" are fundamentally composed of "oughts".

Of course, the argument could be made that ethics are just not functional because people are too selfish to put them into practice.

No so much. I don't think people can act in any other way than for thier own self-interest (appearances otherwise caused by limited perception). People do put ehtics into pratice, it is the basis for "social contracts". The problem is that left to themselves people put them into practice only for members of their in-groups.

There is the matter, though, that people want to be seen (and to see themselves) as good people- even if there is no other personal benefit from it- so people will do good on principle alone in order to conform to their self images.

Yes, that's one reason altruism exists when every person acts in their own self interest; but again, they are "naturally" only concerned with how they are seen by other members of their in-group.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Functionally, what is the difference? Ethics that are not practiced by a society are just wool-gathering, and all "social contracts" are fundamentally composed of "oughts".

They're different sorts of 'oughts'. Ethics is a "if you want to be a moral person, you ought...", and social contract is "If you want to live in a stable society, you ought..."

Social contract is, to an extent, included in ethics (because stability can be a good thing), but ethics go beyond social contract to consider the interests of the inherently disenfranchised.

Animal welfare is a good example of ethics, where social contract has nothing to offer. I.e. whether we treat them well or with exceptional cruelty, they can't retaliate in either case. They have nothing to offer us for humane treatment, but we can choose to give it to them anyway (at our own expense).

People do put ehtics into pratice, it is the basis for "social contracts".

See above. You have that largely backwards- social contract is important in ethics due to its positive effects, but ethics doesn't offer anything to social contract.

Yes, that's one reason altruism exists when every person acts in their own self interest; but again, they are "naturally" only concerned with how they are seen by other members of their in-group.

Not so- people are concerned with how they see themselves, too. It's not just a matter of social benefit (that only applies to psychopaths).

In application it is self interest in the sense that it yields pleasure or pain as feedback and that's how the brain works- but it's an impulse which is itself founded on selfless grounds with no real personal (or social) benefit when taken to modern lengths.

 

[Piscivore]

They're different sorts of 'oughts'. Ethics is a "if you want to be a moral person, you ought...", and social contract is "If you want to live in a stable society, you ought..."

Ethics and morals are meaningless outside of a society. Ethics,morals are learned from other members of a society (even if that society is no larger than a family group).

Social contract is, to an extent, included in ethics (because stability can be a good thing), but ethics go beyond social contract to consider the interests of the inherently disenfranchised.

"Disenfranchised" from what, exactly?

Animal welfare is a good example of ethics, where social contract has nothing to offer. I.e. whether we treat them well or with exceptional cruelty, they can't retaliate in either case. They have nothing to offer us for humane treatment, but we can choose to give it to them anyway (at our own expense).

Nothing to offer, really? Tell that to PETA of the ASPCA who use social pressure to try and change how society views animal welfare.

Any individual treating them well of their own accord is doing so for their own, self-pleasing reasons, one can be sure.

See above. You have that largely backwards- social contract is important in ethics due to its positive effects, but ethics doesn't offer anything to social contract.

As I consider them largely equivelent it is potayto-potahto to me to say which is important to which. Both ethics and social systems (I'm going to stop using "contract" because "social contract" means something specific) are are simply the "rules" that we created to constrain our behaviour, developed ad-hoc when people start living or working together and passed down through cultural transmission through generations and amended when necessary.

Not so- people are concerned with how they see themselves, too. It's not just a matter of social benefit (that only applies to psychopaths).

I think you mean "sociopaths" and I'm not sure that when people consider how the "see" themselves they aren't considering a hypothetical "other".

In application it is self interest in the sense that it yields pleasure or pain as feedback and that's how the brain works- but it's an impulse which is itself founded on selfless grounds with no real personal (or social) benefit when taken to modern lengths.

Can you explain this with a little more specifics, please? What "impulse" are you talking about here- a "concern to see one's self well"? If by "pleasure and pain feedback" you are talking about Freudian psychobabble, that is not "how the brain works". What do you mean by "selfless grounds"? What does that entail? Finally, what criteria do you use to determine what a "real" personal or social benefit is?

 

[RelativeSpace]

Ethics and morals are meaningless outside of a society. Ethics,morals are learned from other members of a society (even if that society is no larger than a family group).

Maybe about as much as math is meaningless outside a calculator.

But that's another topic entirely.

"Disenfranchised" from what, exactly?

From social relevance due to capacity to threaten and withhold that threat by way of mutual agreement.

Nothing to offer, really? Tell that to PETA of the ASPCA who use social pressure to try and change how society views animal welfare.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Both ethics and social systems (I'm going to stop using "contract" because "social contract" means something specific)

There we go.

Now that's an entirely different point. If we retroactively replaced all of the instances of "social contract" in this conversation with "social systems", what you were saying might make a little more sense

Bear in mind, I was talking about social contract specifically- not social systems generally. I can see how you misunderstood if you thought I was speaking of social systems generally. Maybe I should have clarified that point.

Given that, we may not disagree on as much as it seemed.

I think you mean "sociopaths"

I'm pretty sure I meant psychopaths. But maybe we need to look at the definitions more carefully. That said, it's probably off topic.

and I'm not sure that when people consider how the "see" themselves they aren't considering a hypothetical "other".

That seems unfalsifiable and irrelevant; a hypothetical other is not a real other- if the person rationally knows that nobody else is going to learn of this particular behavioral quirk (or care about it), then it's just self judgement.

Even if that "self" is a mental projection of an imaginary other judging him or her, I don't see that as negating my point (and frankly, the idea of such an imaginary other sounds a little like psychobabble).

Can you explain this with a little more specifics, please? What "impulse" are you talking about here- a "concern to see one's self well"?

That, perhaps, or empathy where it is applied to those outside the social contract and could have no real benefit to oneself- that is, legitimate altruism, even if it's just a side effect of another instinct that evolved for selfish reasons of social stability (as much as we can say that evolution has motive).

If by "pleasure and pain feedback" you are talking about Freudian psychobabble, that is not "how the brain works".

I think you're making a straw man here, and I disagree, but that's not the topic at hand.

 

[Piscivore]

Maybe about as much as math is meaningless outside a calculator.

But that's another topic entirely.

Not really, no. Give me an example of an ethical consideration that does not involve someone else.

From social relevance due to capacity to threaten and withhold that threat by way of mutual agreement.

Right. Social relevance.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Possibly. Whay don't you explain what you meant when you used "social contract", that will help us get on the same page.

That seems unfalsifiable and irrelevant;

It is unfalsifiable; I'm just speculating with that. We can't know what another person thinks.

Even if that "self" is a mental projection of an imaginary other judging him or her, I don't see that as negating my point (and frankly, the idea of such an imaginary other sounds a little like psychobabble).

The point I was trying to make is that people exist in societies and get most of the information they base these kind of judgments on from other people- parents, teachers, peers, colleagues. No one exists in a vacuum.

I think you're making a straw man here,

I'm trying not to, that's why I asked all those specific questions. That statment was pretty ambiguous in my eyes and I wanted clarification.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Not really, no. Give me an example of an ethical consideration that does not involve someone else.

"Someone" is ambiguous.

There are plenty of ethical considerations that don't involve context of society though- e.g. our treatment of most other species of animals.

We may be judged by other members of society- but still, the general social attitude regarding positive treatment of other species does not benefit society itself.

It is a selfless meme that is pervasive throughout multiple people- that doesn't make is socially beneficial that it exists.

Right. Social relevance.

You say that like you're making a new point here- but that's my point.

Society != morality.

There are moral considerations for things that have no direct effect on society, and which respecting them has no direct material benefit for oneself.

Possibly. Whay don't you explain what you meant when you used "social contract", that will help us get on the same page.

I meant what is meant by social contract.

I will abstain from killing you if you abstain from killing me. It is a mutual thing- a negotiation, a trade in mutual protection. If one party can not offer a threat to refrain from acting on, that party is not qualified to enter into the social contract (it has no leverage).

Other species generally do not participate in the social contract- yet they are still ethically relevant.

The point I was trying to make is that people exist in societies and get most of the information they base these kind of judgments on from other people- parents, teachers, peers, colleagues. No one exists in a vacuum.

It doesn't matter where it came from- the fact remains that once it's there, it's ultimately selfless with respect to material and social benefit (demonstrated by our behavior when we aren't being watched- and evidenced by society at large possessing this general sentiment without any benefit to itself).

I'm trying not to, that's why I asked all those specific questions. That statment was pretty ambiguous in my eyes and I wanted clarification.

Adaptive neural networks evolve based on selective pressures of positive and negative feedback (or expectation of the same).

 

[Piscivore]

"Someone" is ambiguous.

Of course it is. "Someone" could be anyone.

There are plenty of ethical considerations that don't involve context of society though- e.g. our treatment of most other species of animals.

How doesn't it? If it is just me and the goat out on a lonely farm, the goat is not going to object to whatever treatment I choose to offer it. There are no constraints on my behaviour but my whims... or what other people (society) have taught me.

We butcher and eat animals, wear their skins as clothing, use them for manual labour, kill them for sport, and drive them to extinction simply because we find their existence inconvenient. Where is the ethincal consideration in "treatment of animals", specifically?

We may be judged by other members of society- but still, the general social attitude regarding positive treatment of other species does not benefit society itself.

Absolutely it does, in the most important way possible- it creates parameters of expected behaviour. One of the most important fucntions of a society is that people can expect certain types of behaviour from their neighbors. This is why racism and anti-immigrant sentiment is still so pervasive; people that are different might behave in ways the dominant culture cannot anticipate. Ethnic sterotyping isn't engendered by "hate" so much as it is trying to reduce this uncertainty.

It is a selfless meme

How is it "selfless"?

that is pervasive throughout multiple people- that doesn't make is socially beneficial that it exists.

Of course it does; if it wasn't socially beneficial, people don't do it. That's why dog fighting, cock fighting, bear-baiting, etc are most prevalent and almost characteristic of cultures with poor, unbalanced, or absent social cohesion.

You say that like you're making a new point here- but that's my point.

Society != morality.

I don't see how you think that conclusion follows from that. People create and obey "moral" or "ethical" codes because they live with other people.

There are moral considerations for things that have no direct effect on society, and which respecting them has no direct material benefit for oneself.

Name one. And it isn't just "treatment of animals", because beastiality, bullfighting, and drowning unwanted cats all fall under "treatment of animals".

I meant what is meant by social contract.

I will abstain from killing you if you abstain from killing me. It is a mutual thing- a negotiation, a trade in mutual protection. If one party can not offer a threat to refrain from acting on, that party is not qualified to enter into the social contract (it has no leverage).

That was a nice theory, back in the seventeeth/eighteenth century, but that's not how it works in the real world. I refrained from killing you because it is in my best interest, and vice-versa.. There is no "negotiation", no "trade". I don't have to go around to each neighbor individually and strike a deal with them so they won't kill me.

Other species generally do not participate in the social contract- yet they are still ethically relevant.

How? And if they can, why not the people who you say "have no leverage"?

It doesn't matter where it came from- the fact remains that once it's there, it's ultimately selfless with respect to material and social benefit

Explain how it is "selfless".

(demonstrated by our behavior when we aren't being watched-)

"our behaviour when we aren't being watched" is highly variable. Some continue to behave ethically, some don't. All that serves is a measure of how far an individual is socialized.

and evidenced by society at large possessing this general sentiment without any benefit to itself).

What sentiment does society at large posess that is of no benefit to itself? Name one.

Adaptive neural networks evolve based on selective pressures of positive and negative feedback (or expectation of the same).

There is just "feedback". Unless you are talking about electrical charges "positive" and "negative" are simply post-hoc subjective value judgements. The exact same stimuli that is "positive reinforcement" to one individual may be negative to another.

 

[Humes fork]

True. To be fair, I think Rand says "Reason" here, perhaps to avoid this confusion.

Hmm, maybe. "Reason" is one of those vague words without any strong meaning, but which nevertheless sounds good.

How so?

If free will is an illusion, then they are not the supreme authorities over their minds and bodies.

So would you say there is no objective morality at all?

That's right.

That morality is determined by those in power?

Not quite. There is evidence that our moral sense has evolutionary roots, combined with cultural factors. The rulers must still anide by the accepted moral rules of the people they rule in order to be accepted as legitimate rulers. Even the most ruthless dictator needs henchmen.

I don't follow. City-states needn't be entirely isolated and probably ought to be confederated to promote cooperation and trade. It would also seem to me that, with land administered via direct democracy of local residents, environmentalism would be a top priority, preventing the tragedy of the commons. NIMBY and all that.

But do nation-states operate like that? If not, then why would city-states? Luxembourg and Singapore aren't any more inclined to it than nation-states.

Actually, very little of this philosophy is owed to Rand; I am mostly influenced by liberal/libertarian/anarchist philosophers (Locke, Chomsky, Foucault, Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman, Tucker, etc.).

Fair enough. But I think many of them rely on what Daniel Dennett calls skyhooks to get their philosophies to hang together. Locke explicitly relies on natural rights, provided by God if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for the links! I frickin' love Sean Carroll!

So do I!

 

[RelativeSpace]

How doesn't it? If it is just me and the goat out on a lonely farm, the goat is not going to object to whatever treatment I choose to offer it.

Your disconnect with the fundamental nature of morality here is perhaps too extreme to resolve.

You could equally say:

"If it is just me and a toddler out on a lonely farm, the toddler is not going to object to whatever treatment I choose to offer it."

No, the toddler IS going to object- he or she just can't realistically DO anything about it to stop you.

That objection is what makes it wrong- whether you're stopped or not, whether you suffer negative consequences from those actions or not, whether anybody sees or hears about your actions or not, whether you know about or care about arbitrary social rules or not.

You're confusing practice with principle, and somehow interpreting morality as guided by might makes right in absence of arbitrary social rules. Just because that's how things actually go down in practice, doesn't mean that's how they should go down, or that it is morally acceptable.

That you seem to believe this is deeply disturbing to me- and I mean "makes human centipede look like the feelgood movie of the year" level of disturbing.

Given that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation before it gives me nightmares.

Objectivism terrifies me, and it's not because I don't understand it- it's because I understand it very well.

I used to be there, and I have a pretty good idea of what's going through your head- I think you need to take a long hard look at morality, and consider whether it might be capable of being a meme in and of itself regardless of whether arbitrary social rules support it or not.

Consider this analogy: i, the imaginary number in mathematics, existed as an internally consistent concept ready to be understood before humanity ever invented formal systems to practice mathematics or ever put names to numbers. Concepts are immaterial, immortal, and timeless- they exist whether comprehended or not as internally consistent, logical principles- only nameless. We did not invent i, 0, pi, e, or any number- we just invented ways to express and name them.

Likewise with any legitimate concept in philosophy- morality included.

There is just "feedback". Unless you are talking about electrical charges "positive" and "negative" are simply post-hoc subjective value judgements. The exact same stimuli that is "positive reinforcement" to one individual may be negative to another.

Raw electrical impulses from nerves are meaningless to a conscious being until they are interpreted in the context of various parameters (past experience being one of the most important among them). It only becomes negative or positive after interpretation- but that interpretation is far from random.

There is positive and negative feedback, it just varies slightly in origin and quantity by individual. That doesn't negate it any more than a fish breathing in water and a man drowning in water negates the concept of drowning.

 

[Piscivore]

Your disconnect with the fundamental nature of morality here is perhaps too extreme to resolve.

Why don't you explain what this "fundamental nature of morality" is, then.

You could equally say:

"If it is just me and a toddler out on a lonely farm, the toddler is not going to object to whatever treatment I choose to offer it."

No, the toddler IS going to object- he or she just can't realistically DO anything about it to stop you.

That objection is what makes it wrong- whether you're stopped or not, whether you suffer negative consequences from those actions or not, whether anybody sees or hears about your actions or not, whether you know about or care about arbitrary social rules or not.

You're confusing practice with principle, and somehow interpreting morality as guided by might makes right in absence of arbitrary social rules. Just because that's how things actually go down in practice, doesn't mean that's how they should go down, or that it is morally acceptable.

That you seem to believe this is deeply disturbing to me- and I mean "makes human centipede look like the feelgood movie of the year" level of disturbing.

Given that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation before it gives me nightmares.

Objectivism terrifies me, and it's not because I don't understand it- it's because I understand it very well.

I used to be there, and I have a pretty good idea of what's going through your head- I think you need to take a long hard look at morality, and consider whether it might be capable of being a meme in and of itself regardless of whether arbitrary social rules support it or not.

Consider this analogy: i, the imaginary number in mathematics, existed as an internally consistent concept ready to be understood before humanity ever invented formal systems to practice mathematics or ever put names to numbers. Concepts are immaterial, immortal, and timeless- they exist whether comprehended or not as internally consistent, logical principles- only nameless. We did not invent i, 0, pi, e, or any number- we just invented ways to express and name them.

Likewise with any legitimate concept in philosophy- morality included.

So this is a long and emotional way of saying you believe in objective morality?

If that is so, where in the universe does this morality reside? where does it come from? What does it consist of? Why is there such dramatic disagreement sometimes what "moral" is?

I'm not an Objectivist, by the way.

Raw electrical impulses from nerves are meaningless to a conscious being until they are interpreted in the context of various parameters (past experience being one of the most important among them). It only becomes negative or positive after interpretation- but that interpretation is far from random.

I didn't say "random". I said subjective.

There is positive and negative feedback, it just varies slightly in origin and quantity by individual.

Right, subjective. Different for different people. Meaning not objective.

That doesn't negate it any more than a fish breathing in water and a man drowning in water negates the concept of drowning.

Doesn't negate what?

 

[RelativeSpace]

Why don't you explain what this "fundamental nature of morality" is, then.
So this is a long and emotional way of saying you believe in objective morality?
If that is so, where in the universe does this morality reside? where does it come from? What does it consist of? Why is there such dramatic disagreement sometimes what "moral" is?

I did- at least twice in this thread.

No, because I think I already made that clear. The argument with objectivism is with regards to the nature of that morality, not its existence. Objectivists think the highest moral ideal is selfishness- I differ (like I said earlier, that idea is oxymoronic).

Seriously? Where does pi reside? Where does pi come from?

It's a logical concept. It doesn't live in a cave somewhere, or on a cloud. It doesn't need to emit from anything, or be created by anything.

Again, I have answered this.

Why did some people think pi was 3? Why do some people still believe the Earth is flat? Why is there such dramatic disagreement about evolution?

I think you can answer that one for yourself. But here's a hint: It begins with "ig" and ends in "norance"

That's only an argument against the fallacious "proof" of the existence of divinely guided morality across cultures. I never asserted such an argument.

People can easily be (and usually are) wrong about the natures of logical principles. Unfortunately, rationality is not very intuitive for most people.

Right, subjective. Different for different people. Meaning not objective.

Subjective is not an appropriate word to use here- it's loaded with baggage, implying a matter of opinion (which this is not), and a false dichotomy with objective.

Pleasure and pain are relative to the observer experiencing them, but remain objective principles and logical operators functioning in that instance.

It is not an opinion that Bob is in pain- he is or he isn't.

It's a rough analogy, but it's much like light speed is experienced relative to the observer, but remains objective- as c.

Pain and pleasure are principles of positive and negative feedback which guide the adaptation of a neural network- whether in software, hardware, or wetware. They are objective logical operators.

What stimulates pain or pleasure are merely relative to the configuration- but that doesn't negate the objective existence of pain and pleasure themselves as processes (I have never maintained that they are substances).

Doesn't negate what?

See above.

Drowning is not subjective- it is an objective process. The means of triggering that process, however, are relative to the biology of the creature being drowned.

It's a more easily understood example than the speed of light, though I guess not clear enough. I can't think of any better examples right now, sorry.


This is all quite off topic. Also, not really something I want to argue about.

If you really want to continue, I suggest you start another thread. Others will likely have some input on the subject. I'm not sure if anybody is even reading this here.

If you link me to it by message, I probably will (against my better judgment) reply to your questions in the new thread.

 

[Piscivore]

I did- at least twice in this thread.

Well, can you do so again? I must have missed it. Clearly you and I have differing premises so what may be "obvious" to you is not to me, and vice versa.

No, because I think I already made that clear. The argument with objectivism is with regards to the nature of that morality, not its existence. Objectivists think the highest moral ideal is selfishness- I differ (like I said earlier, that idea is oxymoronic).

Well, like I said, I'm not an objectivist, so this doesn't apply. I don't believe in objective "moral ideals" at all. I think history will back me up on that. About the closest humans come to a consistent "ideal" is "my group first".

Seriously? Where does pi reside? Where does pi come from?

It resides in and originates in the sysetem of numbers we defined and use to describe the universe.

It's a logical concept.

Specifically, it is a relationship between measurements. That relationship exists in the universe and pi is what we use to describe it.

As a "concept", it "resides" in our brains.

It doesn't live in a cave somewhere, or on a cloud. It doesn't need to emit from anything

Ah, you are wrong. it needs a human mind.

Now, with that in mind, where does morality come from?

Again, I have answered this.

Why did some people think pi was 3? Why do some people still believe the Earth is flat? Why is there such dramatic disagreement about evolution?

I think you can answer that one for yourself. But here's a hint: It begins with "ig" and ends in "norance"

So there is an objective morality, and people who disagree are just ignorant?

That's only an argument against the fallacious "proof" of the existence of divinely guided morality across cultures. I never asserted such an argument.

People can easily be (and usually are) wrong about the natures of logical principles. Unfortunately, rationality is not very intuitive for most people.

Morality stems from logic, is that what you are saying?

Subjective is not an appropriate word to use here- it's loaded with baggage, implying a matter of opinion (which this is not), and a false dichotomy with objective.

Really? I am using Subjective as meaning "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective)" and Objective as "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

If that is a "false dichotomy" why don't you explain what the third option is?

Pleasure and pain are relative to the observer experiencing them, but remain objective principles and logical operators functioning in that instance.

So "pleasure and pain" exist outside of human minds too, now?

"logical operators"? I don't think that means what you think it means.

It is not an opinion that Bob is in pain- he is or he isn't.

Yes it is. Bob's. I cannot tell that Bob is in pian by looking at his broken finger. I can guess that I would be in pain in similar circumstances, but Bob might have nerve damage, or leprosy, or be in shock and might not feel anything.

Similarly, I might be morally outraged at sacrificing children to a rain god, but for an Aztec, it was a moral duty do do so.

It's a rough analogy, but it's much like light speed is experienced relative to the observer, but remains objective- as c.

Then you are asserting that morality exists as part of the universe separate from human brains. Great; where? Photons exist, and "c" describes their movement.

Drowning is not subjective- it is an objective process. The means of triggering that process, however, are relative to the biology of the creature being drowned.

Only if you redefine "drowning":
verb (used without object)
1. to die under water or other liquid of suffocation.
2. to kill by submerging under water or other liquid.

 

[Merton]

If free will is an illusion, then they are not the supreme authorities over their minds and bodies.

Okay, that makes sense, though I don't see a problem with operating under this illusion (if it is... your thoughts?). One could, for example, argue against radical skepticism by appealing to the productivity one achieves by assuming an objective, metaphysical reality. In the same vein, an objective moral stance can lead to a "better" (happier?) society even when we cannot know for certain whether free will, and the objective morality based thereon, exists.

But do nation-states operate like that? If not, then why would city-states? Luxembourg and Singapore aren't any more inclined to it than nation-states.

Good point. I did a search on environmentalism and nation size and didn't get any data. But after thinking about this a bit, the tragedy of the commons should be avoided entirely because land is administered by local citizens. The tragedy of the commons is a problem because an individual will reap the benefits of harvesting a resource, but everybody shares the costs. If it's used as either private property (benefits and costs only affect the individual) or public property (benefits and costs affect everyone involved), the problem should be avoided entirely, at least with respect to land. Air and water are more difficult to put concrete barriers around and thus less manageable; perhaps confederation/diplomacy is the best way to handle these.

Fair enough. But I think many of them rely on what Daniel Dennett calls skyhooks to get their philosophies to hang together. Locke explicitly relies on natural rights, provided by God if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, Locke and others tend to derive natural rights from God; this formulation, however, argues for a natural origin.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Hi Piscivore,

Please don't take offense to this, but I'm pretty sure anybody reading this can see that your claims are false (to anybody reading: Take a more careful look at the drowning analogy), so they're not exactly a top priority for debunking for me (and again, not really an argument I'm interested in). I'm not bluffing when I say I'm not going to continue this off-topic discussion in this thread.

But like I said before, please start a new thread and send me a link to it if you want me to reply to your claims- I will probably humor them in an appropriate thread (and where others can give their input too).

Whether or not you choose to continue this conversation, have a good day.