No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation. — Vera Mont

Were do you live? The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people. That is why people get elected to be national leaders, so that the nation can serve the people.

Nationalism doesn't exist, and we're just one big happy family? — Tzeentch

I never said that, I am just trying to make it clear what his motivation was.

You're starting to bend yourself in fascinating angles. — Tzeentch

[snark]I must be learning from you![/smark]

But one thing I will bet with you about. If Churchill had used gas to stop the Germans crossing the channel, the people would have loved him for it.

it was the nation and the empire he served, not the people. — Vera Mont

EErr, and just who are the nation and the empire? Surely they are the people?

That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality. — ssu

Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions.
One of those conditions is the one I specified as its use being the ONLY possible method, in which I stated that I consider that he would be justified in using it.

There are many other possible scenarios, but here I am not making any statements about them.

War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective. — ssu

I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon.

Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner. — ssu

It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon.

If it is actually the ONLY method, then there is no other option. Key word ONLY.
If the world, due to some natural disaster, reached a point where there were few people left and the only way to continue the human race was to force people to breed as much as possible even if they were against the idea. Should the human race be allowed to become extinct? Or would it be immoral to force women to have babies?
Please remember that morality is a social construct based on the needs of the society it serves.

Which is clearly a nationalist sentiment, and Churchill was clearly a nationalist.

I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

You seem to be unaware of the nature of the things you're arguing and now you're trying to compensate with snark. — Tzeentch

So when a christian does what he considers the best he can do to protect his family and kills the people attacking them it is a religious sentiment. No it is animal survival instinct, look after the pack, herd, tribe.
Just because Churchill had a bigger family does not make it a nationalist sentiment, he did not make the decisions he made just because he was British but as the person responsible for the people he was in charge of.

Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute. — Vera Mont

It started as an implausible situation and has continued throughout as one. What if questions usually have that characteristic.

Then how would it stop the enemy, who would presumably be more prepared for gas attack than the local peasants? — Vera Mont

If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use.

How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts — Vera Mont

My dad told me that nearly all of the people in England had gas masks, so I doubt there there would be too much collateral damage.
And the reason everyone had them was that there was amply evidence that the nazis had gas and were prepared to use it. After all all they really needed was the territory and a lot of the people would have been exterminated or used as slave labor until they died.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". — ssu

But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u

Morality isn't about Britain. — Tzeentch

I have no idea how you got from what I said to your reply, absolutely nonsensical.

Who knows what would have happened?

Perhaps the world would have become a better place with so many people wisening up and taking the high road. — Tzeentch

So you think a NAZI Europe should be considered as the high road? I have to think about that for a while.

Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics. — Tzeentch

You are confused and confusing what I said. Let me write it slowly for you.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country.

As we have already mentioned, moral reasoning comes in many version. Churchill considered the different possible out comes of his actions and did what he thought best in REAL life. What he thought best to protect the millions of people under his charge.

So lets go back to the OP.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

As in real life, in this imaginary scene he has a hard decision to make. If the use of gas is considered to be a deciding factor to stop the invasion then he must have been reasonable sure of losing the battle if he did not use it. That outcome would not have been morally acceptable to him therefore he would probable not doubt in using it.

But this is all speculation, because no one here actually knew the gentleman.

While the powerful villain "forcing" one to act is a common concept, I think we should remain critical about whether there is actually any forcing going on.

Winston for example is perfectly free to leave office. He's not forced to do anything.

There's a perfectly moral option available to him: extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

This is silly.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make.
Question: What would have happened if all of the people in line for his job with exactly the same circumstance bowed out saying "I don't want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to be responsible for losing the war"?
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars.

As for there not being any forces applied, you are wrong. Circumstances are a major force in world affairs since mankind started to flourish.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, just because you disagree with his type of morality does not make him the bad guy.

I agree. The worst thing is the loss of imagination. If you read a book, you have to imagine the story, the people and the events yourself. Listening is different, you have to concentrate on the listening. And watching a movie and you don't have to use your imagination at all. — ssu

Here I have to disagree, at least for me.
I had to stop doing so much reading years ago because of eye problems. I spend a lot of time on a computer for work and the strain was getting too much to sit around and read after work or while traveling. So I found a source of audio books.

Depending on how much free time I have I used to read two to four paperback books a week. As you say, part of the enjoyment of reading is putting the faces and scenes in place while reading, but I still do it even when listening to stories.
Maybe it is because I learned to do it while reading from a book that I continue to do it now, but I am sure that it can still be done even if you have only ever listened to stories.

I think much has to do with the method used to teach understanding of the words, it must be difficult to try and teach someone the sense on a sentence without being able to point to it and show how it works.
I only ever used audio-books as a compliment in reading classes. In bilingual teaching it is much easier for the students to listen to the words being pronounced as they read them in the book.

Did that plague lead to the weakening of the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism? — Athena

It might have had some effect on it but plain ordinary greed and corruption were the biggest problem with the church back then. Abbots with private armies and whore houses can be a kings worst enemy.

The anarchy following the weakening of Catholic power and control is a lesson for us, isn't it? — Athena

The only ones that really behaved themselves while the church had power were the poor peasants. And even they got to the point where enough was enough and revolted against the church.

Thanks. I think we agree on most things.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. — Benkei

An idea I have had running through my head for a while, not exact on this topic but not too far from it either.
One of the things that for Muslims is supposed to be immutable is the behavior of women.

I have been watching the protests around the world of the Gaza supporters.
Right alongside the Arab women,(many of which fled their homelands because of laws forbidding them education and basic rights) in typical head scarfs are local women in shorts and crop tops with their heads uncovered.

I wonder if the extremists are sitting around watching the news and saying "Look, Allah has blessed us, even the western whores are protesting for us"

I am not try to be racist or even provoke ire amongst the people in the forum. It is just an honest thought.

I am listing to a professor's lectures on the Renaissance and Reformation, times of big changes. I think we come to another period of big changes. Is there anything from the past that might help us today? — Athena

I am going to be giving classes on those topics next term, Could you send me the info the give you. :lol: Just joking about the info.

I think that you have touched upon a topic here that is current in society today when you ask if we can learn anything from the past. We can learn lots of things, but unfortunately much of the past that we need to learn from is being erased under the pretext of racism.

Fantasies are helpful in creating the future. What would have happened if there was no Renaissance? What if Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority and a new way of seeing the Bible? — Athena

Fantasies are the base of future realities, but they must be based in reality to be of any use. As has been mentioned, I am a hard science fiction person.
The Renaissance was a long process that came about because of curiosity and the unwillingness of people to keep on blaming god for everything, not because of peoples fantasies.
If Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority someone else would have, the situation was ripe for the things that happened. And there were already different ways of seeing the bible, the Jews and the Orthodox amongst others church disagreed with the Catholics on many things.

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, morality, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument. — Tzeentch

Whose morality? On what is that morality based?

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL. — Tzeentch

Not necessarily.

In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Taking of hostages;
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

I will let you figure out how it applies to gang warfare. Oh, hang on. Maybe you have never experienced driveby's with bullets flying in all direction trying to hit the members that are stealing the drug customer of the guys in the car.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion. — Tzeentch

Is there any FIRST PRINICLE that is not an opinion?

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then... — Tzeentch

OK, you win.
I just hope that when you are assaulted in the street your possible life saver does not just walk away thinking that he will not be justified in assisting you by hitting the criminal on the head with a big stick.

Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"? — Benkei

Sorry about that.
The original question is about justifying a person's acts, then morality pops its head up, then justice appears, then law.

While it is obvious that there are connections between these concepts it is difficult to get them into a clear picture.

Justifying ones acts means having facts, motives or reasons for them. But there is no specific reason for them to be morally acceptable.
Morality has to be based on sort of guiding concept, but not all morality is equally acceptable by everyone.
Justice is about judgement of actions and usually is after the fact, therefore not being part of the decision to take a particular action.
Laws would be the method of application of justices. Whilst probably being known before the action to be judged have nothing to do with morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past and some are still today, depending on ones version of morality.

Is there a real difference between moral justification and plain justification, or is it all just word play?

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable. — BitconnectCarlos

Since then they have invent so many weapons that make gas look like a water pistol.

You're confusing law with morality. — Benkei

Again the question, is morality implicit in justification? Or is there a difference between morally justified and plane old justification?

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin: — Tzeentch

I never mentioned justice, only that I could justify my actions because it helped you.
NOTE TO SELF: I must remember not to help you if your dog bites you so as not to anger your sensibilities.

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law. — Tzeentch

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no. — Tzeentch

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess.

If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion. — Tzeentch

I would have thought that having completely different ideas about a topic would make for an even more interesting topic. A discussion between two like minds rarely leads to new thoughts for either. :chin:

Justification:

• Something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary
• A statement in explanation of some action or belief
• The act of defending, explaining or making excuses for by reasoning

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me. — Tzeentch

Reasonableness:

• Goodness of reason and judgment
• The quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person

Yes, well mankind is not famous for being the most reasonable of creatures or using his reasoning skills in adequate ways. His actions throughout history are ample proof of this. And as I already mentioned, anyone can find a version of morality that can allow them to sleep peacefully after their horrific actions. There are plenty of moral systems out there and you can always invent your own.

Justifying something is not about moral correctness but about having reasons and motives for ones actions. Whether those actions are morally admissible or reprehensible has nothing to do with the actual reasoning behind the actions.
For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm.

Let us ask another question.
Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes.

First of, the question of justification is a moral one, and therefore should be understood on the appropriate level; that of the moral agent - the individual. — Tzeentch

I am not sure about this. Justification does not really belong in the realm of morality. Justified would mean that there are adequate reasons or motives to make an action reasonable. Morality is not always based on reasoning and quite often on vague concepts or beliefs.
If there are enough reasons to justify an action then a moral system can always be found to validate it.

So lets take the individual Winston Churchill.

Winston had many options open to him besides authorizing the killing of thousands.

For example, he could have foregone a career in politics and lived out his life in contemplative seclusion.

An infinitely more preferable and just option than having the blood of thousands on one's hands. — Tzeentch

Since when has war been about the individual? Yes he could have found a better job, testing cigars for the Cubans possibly would have given him the life of contemplative seclusion you suggest.
But that does not change the fact that the bloody nazis were invading and there would still have to have been some poor chump of a prime minister in England that would have been forced to make the decision.

Possibly? But who would be so foolish to become a prime minister if what they aspired to was living a moral life? — Tzeentch

I have aspired to be a great pianist, but it aint gonna appen cause I be tone def.
I doubt that he ever seriously thought that he would live a moral life in politics, but I bet he tried his best.
After the allies started getting German coded messages through Enigma he had to make several serious decisions about how to use the info so as the Germans did not find out that they had cracked the code, many allied lives were lost because of not being able to use that information.

But I think that anyone, even you placed in that position would make the same choices from the bad options available.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them.

A better question might be
"Is it justifiable to permit a group of people ruthlessly kill, kidnap, rape, torture and willfully cause great suffering to others by withholding permission to act in a necessary manner from those changed with the safety of those affected?"

I asked you in my first reply to you: "How would you calculate who has worse luck?" I think you must not have noticed this question as you haven't answered it yet. — Truth Seeker

There is no answer to that question, that is why I did not answer it.

All-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings don't actually exist and will never actually exist. I am merely imagining such beings for fun. You are taking it far too seriously. This is a fictional scenario. — Truth Seeker

I am not taking seriously at all the scenes you paint. It is more than obvious that it is fictional. But the reasons you are giving for creating them should be taken seriously. I have found that, usually, the wilder the fantasy the more serious the cause.

Do you accept my ideal reality which consists of an infinite number of all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings who each own an omniverse containing an infinite number of universes? — Truth Seeker

Your fantasy reality is as good as any other of the same genre, but I would not try writing a book about it. And acceptance of your fantasy by me is of no consequence at all, if it makes you happy.

Personally, if I were to invent a universe because I did not like the one I was in, I would invent one that had solutions to the problems that were workable instead of making one where it is impossible for them to exist.

It's supposed to be a fun thread where everyone can imagine whatever they want! — Truth Seeker

Things cannot be sooooo bad then, if you can find enjoyment in the little things. :wink:

I am so sorry for all your suffering and loss. Two of my friends with Bipolar Disorder took their own lives as the illness is so hard to live with. Many of my relatives have died from illnesses and accidents. This is not a competition on who has suffered more. — Truth Seeker

I did not give this information as a way to get sympathy or brag, but as an example that you are not alone in your suffering. I could go on about other problems I have, but I won't because I still consider myself to be a very lucky person compared to many others I know. I presume your motives for listing your woes were for similar purposes.

You didn't answer the questions I asked you in the previous post. Is that because you don't know the answers or don't want to answer my questions? — Truth Seeker

If these are the questions you refer to then I must have missed them.

What does your ideal world look like? How would you prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths? — Truth Seeker

Because I don't think that your small picture of the world is adequate to work on as we do not know the rest of the universe and there might be millions of the creatures you describe out there already, my ideal universe is a place where nature and her laws do what they are there to do.
If it takes millions or billions of years for nature to develop worlds that can be populated with the beings you so desire then millions or billions of years will have to pass. But it is doubtful that it will ever happen.
To create the beings you want, you would have to start with a fully formed universe that is the perfect place for them to live. Is a static universe even possible? It would have to be, or they would be forced to fight with the laws of nature and physics. It would be impossible for them to live on a world with anything but a perfect climate. Or would their all-powerfulness make it possible for them to sustain the lives of stars indefinitely?

All-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful beings would be able to keep themselves from being bored using their abilities. For example, I draw pictures, write stories and poems and play musical instruments, etc. I could do so much more if I were all-knowing and all-powerful. I would be able to draw an infinite number of pictures, write an infinite number of stories and poems and play an infinite number of musical instruments, etc. — Truth Seeker

I am pretty sure that if you ask most artists about the satisfaction they get from their drawings, musical instruments, poems and stories, they will say that it is from the creative part of the process that leads to the final attaining of the ability to do something well. All-knowing beings would miss out on that.
The other part of their satisfaction comes from the acceptance and happiness brought about in others reception/perception of their art, in a place where everyone can do just as good as you that would also not happen.

They would not even be able to paint the changing of the seasons or design clothes for each of them. I would not wish an eternity of that on my worst enemies.

I would not be destroying anything. I would be preventing. For something to be destroyed, it must first exist. You can't destroy something nonexistent. — Truth Seeker

By not letting it exist you are destroying its potential, even if it is only in your head.

Again, I am preventing the existence of those who suffer and die — Truth Seeker

What right do you think you have to do this? Whether you believe in a godly creation or in evolution, suffering is a part of life.

instead creating those who are all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful so that they will never suffer and die. — Truth Seeker

Do you think that a bunch of god like creatures would not suffer? Have you no idea about the effects of boredom? Something that is all knowing has no motivation to learn nor experience new things. Something that is all powerful never knows a challenge.
What the hell would they do with their eternal lives?

I have been suffering from CPTSD since 17 December 1982, Bipolar Disorder since 29 September 1997 and chronic nerve pain since 21 August 2008. I am on various medications but they are not very effective. I was kidnapped when I was 4 years and 5 months old. I almost died by drowning when I was 4 years and 9 months old. I was raped when I was 5 years and 9 months old. I watched people murder each other when I was 8 years old. I was beaten regularly by my Mum from my earliest memories (age 4) to 15 years old. I was beaten regularly at school by my teachers. Six of my relatives were murdered. My best friend was also murdered. When I was 9 years and 7 months old my younger brother died at the age of only 8 days due to doctor's errors. When I was 13 years and 8 months old my favourite uncle died due to an anaesthetist's error. My uncle was only 28 years old and had just gotten married. When I was 12 years and 10 months old, I experienced a cyclone that killed 138,866 people. — Truth Seeker

So at a quick guess I would say that you are about 44 years old, live or lived in Bangladesh or India, have an extremely good memory and have had a lot of bad shit happen to you.

Whilst I admit that I have not experienced the personal abuse you were subjected to and are probably the reason you think as you do, I have not had an easy life either.

Without going into any really personal problems:
I have had several close friends that have died, in accidents, by sickness( three to COVID) or murdered. And also three by suicide.
I live in a country that was for years the most deadly country in the world, in a space of two blocks in each direction from my house we had a total of eight murders in less that six months.
I have experienced several hurricanes that might not have left as quite as many dead as the one you mention, but left wide spread and devastating damage to the place I live. I have experienced several severe earthquakes that have done serious damage to the place I live, one of which almost destroyed my home.

But after all of this, and knowing that many are suffering in this world, I do not think for even a minute that I would wish to to change the universe because I am pissed of with it.

Justified, maybe.
But what is the difference between gas and killing a bunch of people with a big bomb that might only kill a few of them immediately and leave a lot more suffering their wounds before they die or even living a life of suffering for years after?

I don't know. I didn't claim to be all-knowing. I am going by what I have observed on Earth. — Truth Seeker

Strange that you would destroy what could be trillions of millions of possible life forms based on what little you know about the earth.

I am merely exercising my imagination, nothing more. — Truth Seeker

But doing so after possibly killing off a lot of beings just like that without even knowing.

You would not say that if you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present. I hate life the way it has been and is. The world has been and continues to be full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. — Truth Seeker

Misery loves its own company.
It is easy now to see why your imagination creates the scenes you describe above. You appear to be suffering from "The world fucked poor lil'ol me" syndrome. With a side of "Only I know what I am suffering" complex thrown in.

I have no idea about your life nor what you are suffering from, but I am willing to bet that I know people with even worse luck in the lottery of life. And some of them will never have the opportunity to go online to complain in a philosophy forum.

Most of us I believe spend some of our time here on earth wondering "what if". It is a wicked waste of time and torture to our brains. All it does is make us feel miserable about things we did wrong but cannot change.

I would prevent the existence of the universe (or universes if there is more than one) as that would prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. — Truth Seeker

How do you know that all of the universe is like our little shit hole corner of it?

I would bring into existence an infinite number of all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings who always make perfect choices instead of fallible organisms such as ourselves who make mistakes, suffer and die. — Truth Seeker

Your god syndrome and alpha macho ego are definitely on show hare. :rofl:

Hey, sometimes they slip through the cracks. — Mikie

:lol: :rofl:

I have no idea who that is. — Mikie

Your loss youngster. :rofl: :lol:

:rofl:
I think the advice about raising kids is spot on, bigger sticks should then mean better kids.

:rofl: Not all, but I think that a lot of them probably fall into the category.
I met one that explained to a group of teachers that the act of chewing gun was the equivalent of masturbation, while continually chewing her pen while listening to people talk.

But that doesn't mean what they teach is useless. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that someone who is flawed can't also be a conduit for wisdom. — Tom Storm

It was more of a "do they practice what they preach" thought than an actual question.

The bible is a collection of life guides that was collected from many ancient cultures. A lot of the books that are sold are on a similar line. When someone digs up these books in a few thousand years, what will they think about us? Probably that we were a bunch of wild savages living on base instincts.

RIP Duanne Eddy

There is no way you are not a bot made in 2015 by a now-bankrupt company. — Lionino

But there were an infinite number of self replicating bots made in 2014.

What always amazes me is the fact that despite so many people writing articles and even books about this topic, there are literally hundreds of them online, so many people live unhappy lives.

I would really like to see some statistics about the writes of these ideas to see if they have achieved what they preach using the ideas they tell others to use. Or whether they attain a fulfilling life off of the profit from the books.

There isn’t a certain question at hand. It’s an invitation to think about certain points which I post. I throw my thoughts out there and hope to create a place for people to just let there thoughts roam. — Elnathan

OK, but just opening the thread to be met by that is overwhelming. I read most of it but I, fortunately, had the time to do so. For some people it would be easier to read three or four threads on different topics.

And without some sort of a question or prompt it is difficult to know how to reply to what you are saying.
You say things have been proven, do you expect everyone just to accept your word for it? Provide some links or quotes to back up your beliefs.

Somehow you've managed to attribute nearly all the quotes in your reply to a poster who's not even participating in this thread. — Wayfarer

It is easy to do and I think his sarcasm is peaking out there a lit bit.

:up: