No. I was not agreeing with you but damning you for your childish framing.

Misanthropy is not a thing that is true or false. There are examples of it, sure, but evidence of it does not amount to answering your question.

If your choice is free it is worthless. Unless it is determined by your present condition; your motivation; your education; your experience, none of these things are of any worth to us. If we choose freely in spite of all these things then why learn at all?

It is highly unlikely that a concept of "soul" which we have inherited from the infancy of human thinking, is a valuable concept nor is it likely to be true. Such an idea comes from a time when the whole world was thought of as being inhabited by spirits, malicious, benign, and beneficial. The soul was a way to explain death, being an incorporeal and invisible"part" of the body that departs to take the living spirit with it; it made the heart beat, and when that ceased it was taken as the soul descending or ascending according to which set of myths went along with the soul.
Such an idea has no basis in modern thinking or science. It is a theory which does not work; a fantasy.

"YOU" are making choices. Those choices are based on your learning and experience, and are therefore determined by them. You cannot be free of yourself, there is no freely made choice in the terms outside the determinism of reality.

You have reality backwards. "Perenialism" and any other set of -isms are not the sort of thing from which a description or exposition of which "LEADS TO", or has things that follow from. Perennialism is a gross categorisation of a complex set of positions.
There is no such thing as a perennialist, but if there were his position would be far more credible than the one which you seem to be groping towards. And nothing is implied in your definition of perennialism which suggests from the two questions that he might want his religious cake and eat it to. Just because a given religion might contain such truth does not mean that the "perennialsit" what ever the hell that is, wants something from that religion.
And I have no idea why you think your last paragraph means anything, or follows from anything.

If a person can make a free decision without reference to ANY experience, would prove false the notion that free will is an illusion. Such is conceivable.
Since this could never be done, the statement that free will is an illusion is a valid one.

Not over moderated so much as a Forum full of jokers. Or should I say morons? yes, morons would be more like it.

Argument A:
Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are fish
We can draw a perfectly reasonable conclusion:
No fish are mammals
FALSE. No such conclusion may be made. Premise two only means a fish is not a dog. According to that premise a Fish could be the same as a cow or a pig.

You are either taking the piss. or are just stupid. Which is it?

Define 'race' then demonstrate an example!

Premise 1: All dogs are mammals
Premise 2: No dogs are cats

Because these are just two statements about dogs that are not connected.

Is you handle "Mad Fool" more than just a name?

There is no conclusion here. The premises may be true but nothing further can be draw from them.

Both premises are false.
That being the case it is not worth persisting.
A tree is alive. A tree does not suffer. A tree does not want.

Even for living things that suffer, suffering implies not wanting. So the argument is circular and the venn diagram is not what you think it is.

Nothing qualifies as a race, least of all Jews as the term reflects not only a religious group, but an assumed "ethnic" grouping.

You have completely missed the point. Mind is physical. any move towards a dualism which suggests otherwise is just question begging nonsense.
Only physicalism can answer how it is that your mind can be altered by drugs. If the mind is note physical, then you have a job on your hands to say how this works.

Seems to be your fallacious answer to everthing. Sadly your obsession answers nothing.

Evolution demonstrates the value of co-operation and the discovery of skills and potentialities in the most unusual places. The fact of evolution by natural selection does NOT mandate and programme of eugenics, selective breeding nor the sterilisation or termination of so-called mutations. The only rule is survival to produce viable progeny results in the persistence of traits. It matters not by what means this is achieved, nor does it validate any direction towards intelligence, strength or fertility.

Rubbish. Physicalism is not than just measurement. "Description" goes far beyond measurement.
Havce you nothing else to offer?

"How does Physicalism explain why there's this physical world which, according to Physicalism, is Reality itself. ... independently, fundamentally-existent.,"
Nothing explains that. What makes you think it is explicable?
You can hardly demand the answer to such a question that nothing can explain.

"Why is there that independently, fundamentally existent physical world, that comprises all of Reality?"
You are asking a phantom question. Why do you think it is "independent". Independent of what exactly?
Physicalism is a description of what is the case. There is no where you can stand outside of it to view it independently. I think, once you have divested yourself of your disabling dualism you might be better equipped to understand the questions you are asking.

There is nothing 'mere' about material. You are just underestimating the potential of material and energy to describe reality. Energised matter gives us physicalism and there is nothing that this will not ultimately explain. There is no other -ism capable of beginning to illuminate our existence.

Claiming that non-conscious objects have a purpose is, in English, an abuse of language. For Aristotle you can get away with it, since "purpose" can be conflated with "cause" and for Aristotle's first three causes the dumb effects of pure deterministic effects came into play. For his fourth cause you get a telos, which has to include a conscious purpose (unless you believe in god - then every thing and all cause is purposeful).

If you define yourself by race that makes you a racist. Racists attract other racists. That does not mean that the category is viable or useful.

The idea of a race is a bogus category. So there is very little point trying to pretend that "semitic" means a thing it don't mean. No one self identifies as "semitic" in the racial version of the meaning.
"Antisemitic" is a word used by people who think "jew" is a viable category against people that don't like 'jews'.
It acts in a way to justify the unjustifiable land grab of a religious group of people who pretend that they have some sort of prior claim on the territory of Palestine, and have used that claim, with the collusion of France, UK and the USA to colonise that land to the detriment of the people who have lived there continuously since time immemorial, whose property rights have been taken away form them; have been incarcerated, packed into trucks and 're-located' and interned. Moreover, have had even more land lost through conquest of "Israeli" forces. They now live in the world's largest prison whose nearest analogue is the Warsaw Ghetto; called Gaza.

"I don't see how this explains the difference between "the plant intends to produce seed" and "the plant will produce seed". Are you saying that the former means "the plant has a chance to produce seed"?

"Intention" and "will" are identical. "The plant shall produce seed", or "the plant is going to produce seed" would be preferable, as "Will" implies intent, whereas "shall" is neutral.

Obviously will or intent and even "purpose" are bad language when it comes to evolution, as they hint at a teleology. But you do not have to go far even in the works of the greatest writers on evolution to see this mistake made again and again.

"Planet" conforms to anything that has an erratic movement in the sky, but looks like a fixed star other wise. All visible stars can be shown to rotate from a point near the Pole Star in a uniform circle.
The ancients noticed that some stars did not conform to this motion; demonstrating a retrograde motion. They were dubbed WANDERER, and that is how we come to have use of the word "planet". I see no good reason to down grade Pluto because of its size.

None the less the concept of acquired characteristics is included in both the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, and taken as read.
His 'empirical' evidence of evolution via natural selection is never established except by inference with domestic selection. And ever Karl Popper had to give him a free pass when it came to falsification.

Yes, on the direction issue, Dawkins talks the talk but fails to walk the walk. Whilst he denies the idea that evolution is directed towards a goal, he still asserts the oh so human teleological notion of progression. He's a bit of a disappointment; philosophically naive in the extreme.

It has also been expressed that Darwin, although presented natural selection as one of the means of evolution, did not reject the idea of Lamarck - acquired characteristics. And together with his cousin Francis Galton tortured 100s of rabbits in order to prove the case. He fondly wished for the improvement of mankind and being embroiled in inheritable determinism hoped that what a person did in his own life could be passed to his children, especially in the matter of the improvement of slave families.

He and Galton gave up the failed experiments in 1871, and Darwin broken by his own "genetic" determinism looked at the horror of his own conclusions. It is sad that he did not give more credit for learning, as his own experience with Jemmy Button and his acquaintance with other black people offered him a very modern view of equality.

@Tom
" males are subject to immense selection effects by females."
Indeed, and the main case often used to express Lamarkian evolution; the length of giraffe necks has little or nothing to do with reaching for the leave of trees. In fact giraffes mainly and very uncomfortably graze grass from the ground. The reason they have such absurdly long necks is the fact that males engage in fierce competition for females by using their heads as war hammers and throw themselves against other males with their long necks.
Sadly, like males have nipple, both males and females are burdened with this absurd adaptation and struggle to get blood pressure enough for their brains, and have to contort themselves to eat, from the ground.

@Metaphysician Undercover
The only thing deficient, is you knowledge of evolutionary theory. Had you taken the time to read Darwin's work, you would have seen that what you call "husbandry" is fully covered under the chapters about "Domestic Selection", and was by the reflection on these matters that natural selection came about.

To know if ignorance is or is not absolute, one would have to have some knowledge, Thus the idea that ignorance is absolute is self defeating. knowing anything about anything, means ignorance is not absolute.
In the same way, asking if any truth were absolute refutes itself as having to ask the question implies that you do not know.

I'd never compare him to Trump in any context, nor on any way shape or form. They are not only at the opposite ends of the political spectrum but at opposite ends of the spectra of decency, politeness, common sense, approachability, wealth, and honesty.

At his age no one is going to turn him into a smooth talker, but freshen him up a bit. You will admit he stumbles and allows his sentences to run on. He's going to have to face hardnuts and sneaky backstabbers.

Thanks. This is why I never apologise. I always offer an explanation and reassure concerning my good intentions.

What do you mean "talk bollocks"?
Most people I've talked to get their information about JC through the media. Hardly a reliable source.
When you actually hear him speak he talks sense. He might not be the greatest orator in the world, but a bit of coaching should tidy up his verbal redundancies and tailor his ideas to his audience more effectively.

@anonymous.
I do not see rationalising as the problem here. What use is the feeling if you do not think through the problem. And that is exactly the result that leads to your last sentence.
All these responses that lead to emotional angst are negative if you do not learn and change according to practices that made you feel that way. Regret, being apologetic are all useless. Being able to explain what has happened and knowing how your actions have contributed to harm is vital.
Regret nothing. Never apologise. Learn through explanation.

I've never understood it. As I rarely if ever intentionally do harm and later regret it, I never feel any guilt. On the rare occasions where I intentionally set out to do harm, why would I feel guilt for fulfilling my will? To feel guilt is denial. A denial of the self.

I do not trust guilt. It seems to be an emotion that people display so they can avoid responsibility for their actions, such as in front of a judge or other figure of authority. Do people actually 'feel' this? Or are they just worried at the possible ramifications of their poorly judged decisions and actions?

Owen smith seems to have grown left wing balls over night. If he wins, I think those balls will drop off, and he will return to type.
Copying everything JCs says in not a policy manifesto, and anyone voting for him is going to be disappointed.