The Case of Emily Clemons

Barry wrote:

Manurities oppress themselves. Whites vainly attempt to lift them out of
their poverty and self-imposed depravity.
----------------
No they don't. If they did they would most likely succeeed. They
refuse to take the time or spend the money it would take to right
the wrongs done those people's family lines long ago. All you
right-wing morons do is work to compromise into impotence or gut
the level of social spending that might actually do it.


As a black professor once stated:
"I never heard of a black kid who was told he must drop out of school by a
white racist, or a black teen who was forced to have sex with another black
teen & have a child out of wedlock by white racists, or a black who was
forced to use drugs by white racists. Poor blacks make their own bad
decisions to wreck their lives, & then want to blame white racism for their
problems."
---------------------
That professor was a deluded self-fashioned reactionary, like Bill Cosby
or numerous other delusionals.

There is a clique of self-hating minority professors, it appears to
be the only way these wretches can attempt to stand out, by sucking
up to the white rightwing.

As for you, you're just another ****-ignorant little racist, and I
have no doubt that in your next life you'll be of a similarly
disrespected group and be just as helpless as you peculiarly imagine
it is so impossible to be, just to haul your little ignorant nuts
up by he short and curlies and educate your sorry ass.

People make bad decisions because they see no other way to get their
needs met, and whites would do the very same things if trapped in
that position. If you had studied in school instead of drinking beer
and slobbering you'd know better. Only the ignorant blather the kind
of **** you do.

There is NO SUCH THING as "Free Will". It was invented in the Spanish
Inquisition to make the hastily drafted thousands of Church torturers
feel better about the evil they were perpetrating to believe that what
people think and believe is entirely chosen somehow in advance by them,
instead of inculcated into them almost irremediably by disinforming
parents and society and their random experiences.

I offer a proof:
Neither you nor anyone can change the smallest item you believe by
an act of supposed "Free Will". You could LIE and SAY you did it,
but everyone knows in their heart of hearts that changing what we
believe on a whim is impossible! And if it is NOT on a whim then
it is such a change that arises without your deicision, and one
that you can neither prevent or alter.

What you believe comes by your upbringing, brainwashing, and your
personal experience, none of which you can change. We may change
each other from without by interacting, as I may change you here,
but neither of us control it or could ever change it. It is what
happens, and there is only ONE "what happens"!!
Steve



"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
~*~ Magda *~* wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:30:02 GMT, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Barry"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like
this:

... Talk about a sicko! A person who hates his own race is the deviant,
sick
... slime ball.

Doesn't familiarity breed contempt?

Liberals think it is A-OK for third world scum to love their
... race. Black pride is lauded, as is Hispanic pride in what they call
... "culture", & their pride in "La Raza". Ditto with Jewish pride &
heritage,
... and their desire for
... Jews to survive as a unique people. Liberals only get angry & start
the name
... calling when WHITE people show some pride in their race or express
a desire
... for white people to continue to exist.
---------------------------
That's because white people are the oppressors, they have NOTHING to
be proud of EXCEPT to support their former victims' efforts to get
free!


Are liberals so stupid
---------------------------
They aren't stupid, YOU are.


that they do
... not realize that blacks are 50 times more likely to murder,
----------------------------
Only because we made them be. It's not genetic, which you seem to
keep missing. If whites were the formerly enslaved group they would
be doing the very same things.


& that more than
... 90% of interracial crimes are committed by manurities against
whites?
-----------------------
And whites deserve everything they're getting.


Yes,
... they are stupid, menatlly ill hypocrites!
-----------------------
That's just your racist lie.
Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:
I offer a proof:
Neither you nor anyone can change the smallest item you believe by
an act of supposed "Free Will".

Three distinctions can be made:
- Knowledge
- Belief
- Opinion

I think you mean to say that "what someone believes" is the
sum of all three. If so, I agree that "free will" can't change
what you know, but we run into trouble after that, because
"free will" can change the other two.

I offer this proof:
Belief is by definition holding something to be true without knowing
it.
If known, its knowledge, not belief.

You can not, by will alone, choose to know or not know something.
If you know it, you can't force yourself to just "forget" it, and if
you
don't know it, choosing or wanting to know doesn't help, you have
to actually learn/discover/deduce it.

You do choose to believe something, by deciding to hold it as
true without actual knowledge of its truth.

Opinion is where belief and knowledge can mix. You can base
some opinions on beliefs, you can have some opinions as belief
supported by some knowledge, and can hold some opinions
only as result of knowledge. You can even hold some opinions because
of _believing_ you have knowledge, etc...

What you believe comes by your upbringing, brainwashing, and your
personal experience

Sure, but exclusively ?

A) If you count even every internal thought and feeling as part
of "personal experience", then truly there is nothing beyond the
three influences you mentioned.

B) If "personal experience" is just the sum of external events that
you experience, then there's more to it - your thoughts and feeling.

none of which you can change.

Not really - upbringing and personal experience don't just happen
to an inert, unreactive object - the living being still has
interpretive
input and active participation in the process, for both A and B
above.

Certainly, there is much that we can't change, but there is a portion
we can, and sometimes the influences that can't be changed aren't
nearly as potent as the response/feedback loop chosen.

In addition, knowledge can't be discounted as having impact on
what is believed. For instance, someone can choose _not_ to
believe something simply because there isn't enough knowledge
available to support it. Similarly, someone can choose to believe
something simply because it aligns to their perception of how things
_should_ be. Additionally, different people have different
"thresholds" for gauging "what is enough", etc, and there is even
some choice involved in that.

In the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, noone has ever successfully
argued that either element is exclusively dominant.

We may change
each other from without by interacting, as I may change you here,
but neither of us control it or could ever change it.
It is what
happens, and there is only ONE "what happens"!!

Right - what is _is_ and what isn't _isn't_ - but that doesn't
mean that what _is_ must be pre-determined. The
cartesian truth is merely that what _is_ reflects actual
choice.

You can only know what you _know_, and must choose which
of the things, that you feel to be true but can't actually _know_,
to believe. In a way, its an exercise in acknowledging
certainty. Additionally, its an individual's choice on where
the "certainty" thresholds are, and how important they are
to acceptance of ideas.

You could LIE and SAY you did it,
but everyone knows in their heart of hearts that changing what we
believe on a whim is impossible! And if it is NOT on a whim then
it is such a change that arises without your deicision, and one
that you can neither prevent or alter.

Not necessarily true - changing by "free will" doesn't imply "on
a whim". "Free will" could involve deciding to think more about
the belief. Even though there's no choice in the fact that the
knowledge gained might obliterate the belief, the choice was
made to engage in the speculation to begin with, as was the
choice to believe without knowledge in the first place.

wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
I offer a proof:
Neither you nor anyone can change the smallest item you believe by
an act of supposed "Free Will".

Three distinctions can be made:
- Knowledge
- Belief
- Opinion

I think you mean to say that "what someone believes" is the
sum of all three. If so, I agree that "free will" can't change
what you know, but we run into trouble after that, because
"free will" can change the other two.
----------------------------
No. Any attempt at separating the items you cited is spurious and
itself merely a belief.


I offer this proof:
Belief is by definition holding something to be true without knowing
it.
If known, its knowledge, not belief.
-----------------------------
There is no difference. People believe some things are facts which
to others are "obviously" fraud. But even if there could be some
independent standard of "fact" versus "belief", one that simply
excluded people with poor discernment or mania, you cannot change
whether you believe something is a fact, it relies on exteernal
experiences to change your mind, and such change is out of your
control. You do NOT "decide" to change, rather you ARE CHANGED
by external events. The existence of idiots and their exclusion,
no matter where the line might be drawn, does not exempt any one
else from lacking this imaginary "Free Willl".


You can not, by will alone, choose to know or not know something.
If you know it, you can't force yourself to just "forget" it, and if
you
don't know it, choosing or wanting to know doesn't help, you have
to actually learn/discover/deduce it.
--------------------------------
You're indulging in smeary double-talk. There is NO evidence of any
"Will" existing except as a resultant condition without cause in you.
Thus it is NOT any sort of "Will". To be "Free Will" a will would quite
literally have to be able to generate a random belief UNCAUSED, merely
because you thought of it, though how you would come up with any idea
UNCAUSED is purest nonsense.


You do choose to believe something, by deciding to hold it as
true without actual knowledge of its truth.
---------------------------
Nonsense, you are either caused to believe it beyond any ability to
change it from within, or you are brainwashed or abused into doing
so, so that you do so from psychological snares of loyalty to your
abusers required to justify your ego-structure that are just as
unchangable. If you change or grow psychologically it requires
external events reinform you in some manner, or others do so, for
you cannot for yourself if you remain unchanged historically.

The atoms in your brain go where they go because of simple physics
and chemistry, you have no capacity to "steer" them anymore than you
can "will"rocks to fly through the air un-aided, you can only BE what
these atoms DO. I don't even believe in atoms, no real physicist
does, but the heuristic does exemplify this well.


Opinion is where belief and knowledge can mix.
-----------------
You have not yet even showed them to differ.


You can base
some opinions on beliefs, you can have some opinions as belief
supported by some knowledge, and can hold some opinions
only as result of knowledge. You can even hold some opinions because
of _believing_ you have knowledge, etc...
--------------------------------------
More mish-mash, you're now trying to assert the existence of some
vague notion/preference/half-disbelief that is supposedly separate
from belief, when all your disbeliefs are is the flip-side of your
belief coin, the Venn diagramatic complement. You think sloppily.


What you believe comes by your upbringing, brainwashing, and your
personal experience

Sure, but exclusively ?
-------------------------------
No, there are others, however none of them is your "Free Will".
Things that hit you hard enough on the head are one class.


A) If you count even every internal thought and feeling as part
of "personal experience", then truly there is nothing beyond the
three influences you mentioned.
--------------------------------
Now you're apparently arguing for solipsism. I like solipsism, but
it has nothing whatsoever to do with "Free Will", as we can be
totally factually alone but the entirety of our nature can still
cause us to be what we are without any control possible within
our personality.


B) If "personal experience" is just the sum of external events that
you experience, then there's more to it - your thoughts and feeling.
-------------------
More mish-mash, there is no difference between thought and feeling.
Every perceived state cannot be shown to be anything but an idea.


none of which you can change.

Not really - upbringing and personal experience don't just happen
to an inert, unreactive object - the living being still has
interpretive
input and active participation in the process, for both A and B
above.
-------------------------------
So-called "inert, unreactive objects" only exist within our Life
and Perception. There is no evidence that such things "exist" in
any sense in which our experience of Life exists. Rocks and apples
are representative objects *IN* the mind, nothing more. And what I'm
telling you is that this Mind is not even demonstrably "your" Mind,
in that you don't control what happens in your life or, fancifully,
in the representative illusion that is your "head".


Certainly, there is much that we can't change, but there is a portion
we can, and sometimes the influences that can't be changed aren't
nearly as potent as the response/feedback loop chosen.
----------------------------
You're merely avoiding. You can't change the tiniest thing you
think is true by an effort of "will". There is NO "Free Will"
because it would have to be a "Free Whim", and if we had one of
THOSE then we would become immediately lost in whatever incoherent
deluusion of existence we whimsically wandered into mentally, and
we would think we were somewhere totally other than a rule-based
world. If you want a rule-based world, you HAVE to give up all
control and just enjoy the ride, and any supposed "whim" would have
to be actually otherwise, in real fact. The LEAST control by you
would destroy rule-based reality! You would invariably want to
alter the result of physical law for atoms, and that would alter
physical law everywhere!


In addition, knowledge can't be discounted as having impact on
what is believed. For instance, someone can choose _not_ to
believe something simply because there isn't enough knowledge
available to support it. Similarly, someone can choose to believe
something simply because it aligns to their perception of how things
_should_ be. Additionally, different people have different
"thresholds" for gauging "what is enough", etc, and there is even
some choice involved in that.
-------------------------------
But these "threshholds" of which you speak are due to the elaboration
of physical law on quadrillion atom systems, and you are their RESULT,
NOT their controller! The brain is merely an machine built of atoms.
These "choices" that you supposedly make, WELL YOU DON'T! They choose
themselves, and what we are is their result!


In the "nature vs. nurture" discussion, noone has ever successfully
argued that either element is exclusively dominant.
----------------------------------
Nonsense, that argument is unrelated. We have NO control of EITHER
our inherited world history of the genetics we inherit, NO MORE
than we have control of our upbringing or life-experiences!! Notably
we do affect each other and thus change each other, but we do NOT
choose those activities, we are as much victim of them as anyone
else, because we couldn't have changed them!


We may change
each other from without by interacting, as I may change you here,
but neither of us control it or could ever change it.
It is what
happens, and there is only ONE "what happens"!!

Right - what is _is_ and what isn't _isn't_ - but that doesn't
mean that what _is_ must be pre-determined.
-----------------------------
That's like saying that something that's blue is not some other
color! Those statements are the same! I'm NOT saying that ANYONE
once sat down and decided anything would happen, I'm saying that
every past has one and only one outcome in the present! So no,
nobody "predetermined" anything. It didn't NEED to be "determined"
AT ALL! But whatever happens can be said to always have been going
to happen, OR ELSE IT WOULDN'T HAVE!!


The
cartesian truth is merely that what _is_ reflects actual
choice.
-----------------------------
There is no "choice" process. People don't "select" anything, they
simply assert that they did because claiming control of the non-
controllable is what awareness does to claim existence! They can't
even HELP doing it! They'd have to be quite a bit brighter to
understand a higher-level argument like mine, and most aren't
up to it and are quite threatened when I say they don't have any
actual "Free Will", even though the entire concept of any "Free
Will" is logically nonsensical and inconsistent!!


You can only know what you _know_, and must choose which
of the things, that you feel to be true but can't actually _know_,
to believe. In a way, its an exercise in acknowledging
certainty.
--------------
You're claiming an order to occurences that are not only one same
thing but also simultaneous! These words you're describing them with
are different lignuistic facets of the same existential statement!!


Additionally, its an individual's choice on where
the "certainty" thresholds are, and how important they are
to acceptance of ideas.
--------------------------------
Now you're blathering again. You don't "set" any threshhold or
"choose" anything. You keep trying to divide up an imaginary pie
different ways to make it say you have SOME "Free Will", as if you're
claiming that you made the pie, forgetting that the pie
is imaginary! How you divide it has NOTHING to do with who made
it, and you sure didn't!


You could LIE and SAY you did it,
but everyone knows in their heart of hearts that changing what we
believe on a whim is impossible! And if it is NOT on a whim then
it is such a change that arises without your deicision, and one
that you can neither prevent or alter.

Not necessarily true - changing by "free will" doesn't imply "on
a whim". "Free will" could involve deciding to think more about
the belief. Even though there's no choice in the fact that the
knowledge gained might obliterate the belief, the choice was
made to engage in the speculation to begin with, as was the
choice to believe without knowledge in the first place.
---------------------------------------
Will must unfortunately mean Whim. Why? Because ANY Will that is
externally Caused is NOT "Free Will", and ALL Uncaused "Free Will"
is properly defined as Whim!!

People who aren't too bright are frightened by that, but brighter
people know that it doesn't change anything or make any real
difference at all, except in how we treat people.

You see, people who know there is no Free Will have Social Conscience
and know that except for "the grace of God" their Life would be just
as screwed as the unluckiest. You see, NO "Free Will" implies
Compassion, whereas "Free Will" implies only punitive vicious cruel
abuse of the unluckiest people!

A disbelief in "Free Will" implies Mercy, the Good and the Right.

Belief in "Free Will" is the heart of all Intolerance, Evil and
Wrongdoing.

Steve

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Will must mean whim.

Any will that is externally caused
is not "free" will.

All uncaused "free will" is properly
defined as whim.

So externally-caused will is not "free" (check)
and uncaused will is "whim" (check)

....what about internally-caused will ?

Seems to me like what you've said simply
discounts as being "free will" everything
that is not "internally-caused" will
(which might be precisely what we call
"free will", anyway).

I am not sure how this goes beyond just
saying "anything that is not free will is
not free will". While it identifies what is
not "free will" (specifically, "uncaused will"
and "externally-caused will"), it doesn't
say anything that eliminates the possibility
of "free will".

No "free will" implies compassion

I'm not sure how this connection is arrived at...

"free will" implies only punitive
vicious cruel abuse of the unluckiest
people

Because without "free will", it wouldn't
make sense to persecute people, because they
have no choices about their actions ?

A disbelief in "free will" implies
mercy, the good, and the right.

Because knowing that people have no
real choice about their actions allows
us to graciously accept whatever people do ?

Believe in "free will" is the heart
of all intolerance, evil, and wrong-doing.

Because all such bad stuff is the result
of people being "persecuted" for actions
they had no choice about ?

wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Will must mean whim.

Any will that is externally caused
is not "free" will.

All uncaused "free will" is properly
defined as whim.

So externally-caused will is not "free" (check)
and uncaused will is "whim" (check)

...what about internally-caused will ?
-----------------------------
It isn't will at all. External to your Self includes your brain
chemistry, over which you have no control. External is both your
brain chemistry AND your experience of external events. In fact
if we isolate "internal" to include only things over which you
have control, THERE AREN'T ANY! All you are is a naked witness
to your life, over which you have no control. You merely see
things happen due to your brain and body's action, and then you
attempt to claim credit for them, when you don't have any control
over what they do or think AT ALL! As is often alleged by Zen
scholars, when examined closely, there really is no Self at ALL.

You'se nuttin' but dis little helpless guy ridin' da meat machine!

Life is a ride you witness, not one you control. The illusion of
control comes of BEING ideas, one of the ideas being that you
"think" these ideas. You don't! Instead THEY think YOU!!


Seems to me like what you've said simply
discounts as being "free will" everything
that is not "internally-caused" will
(which might be precisely what we call
"free will", anyway).
---------------------------
Internal causes would be the only POSSIBLE "Free Will".
Now all you have to do is FIND SOME! Unfortunately, you won't!


I am not sure how this goes beyond just
saying "anything that is not free will is
not free will".
---------------------
That's a useless tautology trying to be a statement.

Anything that is not free to will whatever it whims is not "Free Will".
If you can't think whatever you want (in other words, a whim), then it
cannot be "Free". And if it is, then it is random, and not controlled
at all, by you or anyone!


While it identifies what is
not "free will" (specifically, "uncaused will"
and "externally-caused will"), it doesn't
say anything that eliminates the possibility
of "free will".
-------------------------------------
Except that there's nowhere else to look for such.

You cannot change the smallest thing you believe by wishing to do so
merely on a whim and in opposition to your own belief. Therefore
there is nothing you think that you are in control of, and therefore
your body which acts on your ideas is also not subject to any supposed
"Free Will". Your ownership of your very Life, then, must NOT rely
upon any supposed control that you exert, but merely on your claim
that whatever is controlling it, that what is controlled, is You!
You are what is controlled, not that which controls.


No "free will" implies compassion

I'm not sure how this connection is arrived at...
-------------------------
Since you deleted the explanation, now others won't either unless
they read back the thread. This explains why you missed it as well.


"free will" implies only punitive
vicious cruel abuse of the unluckiest
people

Because without "free will", it wouldn't
make sense to persecute people, because they
have no choices about their actions ?
---------------------------------
Sure it does. If we can affect each other, then we have the right
to do so, and to change their behavior by threat and terror. We
are each individually Determined to do whatever it is we do.
Our behavior is Determined by cause and effect, even if some of
that behavior is, itself, a cause of effects upon others.


A disbelief in "free will" implies
mercy, the good, and the right.

Because knowing that people have no
real choice about their actions allows
us to graciously accept whatever people do ?
----------------------------
No. It allows us to know that what they are is what they were made
by circumstances and the actions of others, and that if we want them
changed that we will have to change them by rebuilding their knowledge/
experience base, and not by merely banging them on the head top make
them "decide" to change, because they do NOT decide that!

It's fine to kill people that are too difficult to change, but that
also means that what they are is not their fault, so either take on
the responsibility to change them as a society, or kill them quickly.


Believe in "free will" is the heart
of all intolerance, evil, and wrong-doing.

Because all such bad stuff is the result
of people being "persecuted" for actions
they had no choice about ?
----------------------------
Exactly. What we become from childhood is caused by being helpless
victims of others. We are born with our nature but no formation,
and then if we have our nature damaged by malformation, then we
will do evil. If society has the wherewithall it can expend he
energy to deprogram us, or if not, it can kill us. But blaming
people for being who they are is stupid and ridiculous! As a
society we must either undertake to change them, or kill them
quickly to get them out of our way.
Steve