You are delirious from the poison and walked onto a road. Jump again, that's one big mother of a truck coming at you.

Slat.

Too late. :cry:

I have always had intermittent problems with the Quote function on this forum, with the button sometimes just not working, no matter how carefully, firmly and repeatedly I press it. — andrewk

I have had the same problem with my Windows 10 using Firefox on and of since about a year ago. I have no idea why it started, no new installations or updates made at that time nor any change to the problem with later updates. But it works fine with the touch screen

I found, by accident, that if I right click on the button then left click in the Reply Box it works OK.

Never had any problems on any of the other machine I have, including one that has multi-boot various versions of Linux.

No [you]. — S

No what? Could you please try a little harder to clarify what you mean?

It should be obvious that that doesn't really clarify anything and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Healthy according to who? Or according to what criteria? Criteria set by who? Is this an ideal? Whose ideal? — S

The same could be asked when when you say that it is not necessary to eat meat to live a healthy enough life.

First of all, what claim of mine do you call into question? Then we can take it from there. If I think that anything I've claimed requires an authoritative source, I can look into it and get back to you. — S

Just answered that.

I like good grammar.
I thought you'd think that that was a mistake.What you highlighted isn't a mistake.
Although it is common to use only one "that" in such sentences. I'm just a bit of a stickler for formality. You'll see the double "that" again up above a few times and in at least one other of my sentences further down. — S

Bullshit. It makes no sense as you wrote. The fact that you can use that twice in a sentence does not mean that it will always be right. If it had read "that they" it would be clear what you mean, but it would mean almost the same as I wrote.

Do you, or do you not, claim that it's necessary to eat a certain amount or a certain type or a certain whatever of meat each day or even at all in order to be healthy? — S

No I do not claim any such thing. If you would read what I have said it will be clear that I have stated that we need certain vitamins and minerals to maintain our bodies health.

You should also concede for your own fault. But I bet you won't. — S

If you are talking about me saying that it is immoral to sit around eating all day and becoming obese then I will not admit that I am at fault. It is my judgement based, just like yours, on my facts, as I see them, logic and my feelings.

I think that it's not necessary wrong, and I think that it's wrong to simply assume that it's wrong. — S

That makes a lot of sense. Try using your logic and the facts as you see them and make a judgement.

You think that Sapiens is mediocre? Have you actually read it? Or are you judging a book by its cover? — S

No, I did not read it. I listened to it because I do not do a lot of actual reading nowadays because of my eyes. But I have read(listened to as well) much better books explaining the history of humanity.

See, this is where you're showing your ignorance. Please read the book and educate yourself. I purposefully chose the example of a Peugeot, because that's given as an example in the book. — S

See, this is where you show your arrogance. Just because it is the only one you have read you think it is sacred. There are other ways to look at things you know.

We didn't discover Peugeots, obviously. We created them. And that has to do with how we evolved to a stage where we can create fiction. That makes us unique, even among other species under the genus Homo. It's actually an extremely important part of our evolution. — S

Pathetic, any machine is a combination of discoveries. They discovered the wheel, the lever, the gear, electricity, internal combustion all of which made the Peugeot possible. Human beings have evolved little since becoming Sapiens and fiction was created long before that.
So exactly how do you think that these creations are going to change the nature of humans. Will it make us less susceptible to disease, that does not seem to be working very well. Will it make us need less food or water, I can't imagine how. Will it help us to survive as a race, could we actually evolve into a carbon monoxide breathing being.

Going back to what I said, there is plenty of info sources available about the need for vegans to take supplements because they cannot live normally without them. Here is one from a vegan and one from a government institution.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/
https://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/recommended-supplements-for-vegans/

Please show me any reliable site that says they do not need to be taking supplements.

Show me a dolphin who has made a conscious ethical judgement to refrain from eating fish, and you may just have a point. Otherwise you're just trying to nail jelly to your wife. — S

So you think that dolphins automatically eat every fish they see? Try watching Discovery Channel instead of reading those mediocre books you keep recommending.

What’s wrong with the comparison? They eat what they evolved to eat, and we evolved to eat cooked meat. — Noah Te Stroete

Nothing at all wrong with the comparison, it is quite good. But we did not evolve to eat cooked meat, the cooking part came much later. A discovery, whether it is cooking meat or riding around in a Peugeot are not part of human evolution. They are just things that make life easier. That being so, they have no effect on human nature at this time. The results of the laziness that these things cause might make a difference to how humans evolve over the next hundred thousand years but I am not going to wait around to see.

The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. — S

I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it.

And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature". — S

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? — Sir2u

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — S

Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. Second, it does not appeal to anything at all the way I wrote it. It is just a simple question that I wanted an answer to. Based on the few vegans and vegetarians that I personally know I have learned that they do take regular store bought supplements, because there are no "none animal" sources available for those vitamins and minerals. Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you?

However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. — S

As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat.

It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling. — S

This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please?

These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess. — S

So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat?

We eat meat so we should eat meat? — TheMadFool

I don't know anyone that eats only meat. But personally I eat meat because I enjoy it. If that is immoral then I am screwed and will not go to heaven for my sins.

I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue. — TheMadFool

There you go, you are getting the idea now.

What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat. — TheMadFool

The stopped using horses when cars became cheaper, the stopped burning coal and wood then other methods became cheaper, they stopped making clothes at home when the shops sold them cheaper so I guess that the same principle would apply.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool

It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral.

Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming. — TheMadFool

Not all civilizations began with farming. Many of the early cultures had animals domesticated before settling down to planting. But plant crops also gave the early civilizations extra food for the breeding of animals.

Are we evolving into vegans? — TheMadFool

Anything is possible, but I serious doubt that after hundreds of thousands evolving into homo sapiens that we will see the results in a matter of 10 or 20 thousand years that civilizations have been growing their own food.

Eating animals in unethical because, as Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential? — TheMadFool

No has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? Sure nowadays you can pop into a store and pick some up, but there were none available as humans developed. They got their complete set of minerals, vitamins, and fats from what ever they could find and eat.

I guess we just don't care. — TheMadFool

If you want to show how much you care, start campaigning for better methods of breeding and butchering the animal we eat. Stop telling people they are immoral because they kill animal, most of them don't, they just enjoy eating them.

Then what do you think is the best way to address this? It is the most important point; but, I'm at a loss as to how to implement or even devise it. — Wallows

This is supposed to be done at an early age, the best place to start would be preschool. There are several pilot projects being tested around the world. I seem to remember reading about one in, I think, Sweden. where they had lots of outdoor activities, even trees to climb, and the kids were allowed to develop their problem solving and social skills while they played. They are challenged to get things done and they develop their motor skills while learning to count, identify shapes and identify things in their environment.
They learn by themselves what they are good at and what they need help with. They also seem to get an idea of how they learn best the different activities, either being shown or finding out for themselves, by listening to instructions before or as they do the activities, by imitating someone else doing it or watching several others to see which is best for them. They get an opportunity to interact with others to accomplish the tasks and by doing so they learn that not all of them are equally adept at everything.

This would be the best way for kids to start primary school, but the methodology would have to continue. Throughout grades 1 to 12 most kids sit at a desk and do the exact same thing everyone else in the class is doing, most kids just follow the instructions from the teacher and the ones that do try to do things differently are often considered as disruptive elements.

What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by most universities would close down? — Wallows

The governments in a lot of countries seem to think that doing to college/university is a necessity. Lots of parents want their kids to go to one. But how many people actually use the education they get? If I remember correctly in the UK about half of the graduates do not practice their profession. What do you think would happen if the schools turned out kids that were intelligent enough to figure ways to earn money without a degree? What would happen if the kids actually figured out that after a few years of suffering in college they would end up working in a burger joint anyway?

They educational system now turns out to many people that are not suited to the profession they picked and most of the time it is not their fault.

Education, unfortunately, is rarely at the students.
It is usually about preparing enough people to make sure that society continues to run and if possible improve. It is about preparing people to run the businesses and keep the economy rolling. It is also about sorting out the people that will get the C.E.O jobs from those that will go to work in Walmart stores.

Bitter Crank's view is somewhat idealistic, but definitely how things should be. If Bitter Crank's first proposition was done properly everyone would find their way through life much easier.
If the second was done then most of the universities would have to close down. Have you checked out how many people never practice their profession?
The third proposal should actually be #4, would make sure that the right people were doing the right job, because that is what they were supposed to do.
The forth which should be #3 would make sure that his natural skills are developed to serve in the place in society he wants to fill.

Cost could be cut all over the higher education system by making sure that the students that are training for the jobs are really the people that should be training for them.

We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. — chatterbears

Can you prove this statement? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how, considering the human bodies needs, it would be possible to survive without them.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food.

You sir2u should look into Deism. — hks

Been there, done that, still not interested.

And I do know a little about the internet so I don't need you to tell me that I

can google it — hks

Wiki has a great explanation. — hks

I am wordless, that place is not on any intelligent person's list of places to find accurate information about anything.

Sometimes it is necessary to hide things from your children actually. — hks

Hiding "things" from your children is not the same as hiding yourself.

God must have a good reason for hiding from us. — hks

That is what most men that are taken to court for child maintenance say, "I had a good reason not to look after my kids".

We should therefore trust in God and not blame or prejudge Him/Her/Them for what He/She/They do/does. — hks

You would not trust your own father after he abandons you, so why would you even think about trusting something you have never even met?

The created-things are like their Creator. — hks

No we are not, we do not always hide from our children.

Why do we like beautiful things? — Purple Pond

We consider things beautiful because we like them, not that we like them because they are beautiful. They please us in some way, we like them, we call them beautiful. :smile:

A place I worked at used the 13 month calendar, six months work then two vacation twice a year. They used to close the whole factory down for maintenance for the two weeks. Good system.

Are facts necessarily about things? What if things are defined by the facts about them? — BlueBanana

That was my question earlier. What came first, the facts or the objects?

This. Fact's exist relative to an observer. It's a fact. — Posty McPostface

So, no observer no facts, therefore nothing exists unless it is observed. I like that. :up:

A picture describes how to make an object? What? Where did you get this from? What do you think objects are? — Sam26

Sorry, I got that a bit mixed up. Retry:

So if the picture basically describes the make up of an object, then would it have existed before the object? Is it necessary for the object to exist before the picture is created?

If the first then facts are independent of the mind. If the second, it would seem that the world needs us to exist.

Are you leading us to believe in idealism? — Posty McPostface

No, I'm not leading in any direction. But if one had to explain where the picture came from, creationism would be an easy answer I think. That sucks.

In my mind, Wittgenstein was not professing mind-independent facts. — Posty McPostface

I am going to look for the audio book I got and listen to it. It might shake up my memory.

I'm not sure, I suppose that one can have facts that are mind-dependent. I wouldn't assert that facts are mind-independent. — Posty McPostface

In who's mind? Would it not go back to the brain in the vat creating its surroundings if facts are mind-dependent. Or actual physical objects appearing as you obtain the facts about them.

Atomic facts are reflections of elementary propositions. Atomic facts can combine to form facts of any complexity, and as such, describe the world. So yes the whole of the world would be included. — Sam26

So if the picture is basically describes how to make an object, then the the picture must have existed before the object. So where did the picture come from?

Ever the optimist. :rofl:

Are you talking about Wittgensteinian objects, i.e., the objects of the Tractatus? You seem to be talking about objects like apples, trees, persons, etc. Your question may still be valid, but I'm trying to get clear on what you mean by objects. — Sam26

Wittgenstein said, if I remember correctly from so long ago something about the world being described properly only when it is described down to its atomic components. So surely the whole of the world would be included. But I have not read him for a long time so I might be wrong.

Both, I think. — Posty McPostface

But would there not be need of a set of facts in order to make something? Or is it possible for things to just appear?

It would seem that you have to have the facts, or the possibility of those facts in order to create the picture. — Sam26

You can't have the picture unless there is something to picture, so the picture isn't first. — Sam26

So objects are independent of their properties but the properties are dependent on the objects.

The world isn't made up of things. The world is made up of a particular arrangement of things. Things don't tell us anything. So facts are the arrangement of things in a particular way. The world is the world because things are the way they are in a particular way — Sam26

So which came first, the picture or the thing that is made up in the arrangement described in the picture?

You cannot make friends, you cannot have friends. The nearest you can make is a robot, the nearest you can have is a slave. — unenlightened

Would that include sex robots and willing slaves? :wink:

I struggle with making friends. — Posty McPostface

I don't.
I got used to not having friends since I was young. We moved around a lot so I never got to know anyone really well. I have come to be friends of a sort with work mates in the different places I have worked but when I moved on the relationships more or less ended.
I spend most of my time working. If not at school then on school work at home. Then I have my projects, building my house, fixing the car, cutting the grass, looking after the animals(cats and dogs only at the moment). But I enjoy doing these things, I get pleasure from them when I see another project done.
I do a lot of reading, listening now that my eyes are not too good any more. Not just university stuff but different types of novels and stories. It gives you something to think about and to talk about.

I hear people talking about the best buddies from school 30 years ago, they see at least a couple of times every year and I think "What the fuck for?". I don't even speak the same language as the people I left in England forty something years ago. I hear them on the radio and on television shows and I wonder what the hell they are talking about. It is not that I don't speak English any more, it is just that they talk about some many things I don't know about.

I don't know what it is like where you live, but even here in the murder capital of the world you can still meet and talk to people by going to the shopping centers or even supermarkets. Go to the movies if there still exist where you live, if you go several times you will probably start running into the same people and have a chance to talk with them.

I need a much-needed change in surroundings. — Posty McPostface

If you can find your way here, you could work teaching English and live in a relatively cheap place with lots of pretty girls. You can back track along the immigrant caravan trail to get here. Maybe Trump would even pay you to come if you promised to bring some of those people back here with you.

Maybe I need a girlfriend; but, I'm way too Platonic to entertain one. — Posty McPostface

Maybe you don't need a girl friend, but having a girl for a friend can be nice without being a burden.

There is no universal rule to making friends or better friends, it is just a get out there and do it kind of thing. You have to know people to become their friend.

Online life makes things very linear and straightforward. A definite shift in consciousness when engaging in online activities is unconsciously processed. — Posty McPostface

Life is a line between birth and death, I don't think you are helping yourself by making it linear and straight forward. Take side trips into the unknown.
Go to an AA meeting.
Sign up for tutoring where kids are struggling to keep up with school.
Get a job washing dishes in the crappiest restaurant in town.
Go help out at an old folks home.

Then go find a nice garden or park to sit in and think about how crappy other peoples lives can be.
You have a good brain, I am not sure but I don't seem to remember anything about you having any physical impediments.
I see no reason why you should not make the decision to change things and then find a way to do it.

Excuse me for going on so much and if I have said anything that might offend you I am sorry. I could not think of any jokes to cheer you up.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. — LD Saunders

Yeah, OK, whatever. I have had enough of trying to clear you highly bigoted, extremely narrow minded and under educated view of the world. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just realize this, that whatever is in those classes and textbooks is the result of science having done its job already. The job of science is to explain the world we live in, and the rest of the universe. Science is the method used to find out how and why events happen. And whether you want to believe it or not there are scientist that have tried to discover what ghosts really are. There are scientists that investigate UFOs. There are scientist that have studied life after death and previous lives of people. There are scientist that study the possibility of multiple universe that just like ghosts have no way to be detected, YET.

What is in every book that you keep talking about is history, things that have be proven to be true(in most cases at least). What is not in those books is the research that they are doing to find knew information that might appear in next year's edition. Fifty years ago high school kids did not study genetics, they did not learn how people went to the moon and a whole bunch of other stuff that is a part of today's curriculum.
A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed if you had told them that an atom is not the smallest particle. And many would have had you locked up if you had told them that there are ways to cure certain types of insanity.

Books are about history, things that have already happened. They are written after the scientist have discovered a method to investigate things. Have you read in any of these books that you have read so many of about the eleventh planet in the solar system, of course not because even even though the scientist are sort of sure it is there they cannot prove it.

Have you ever read about a pill that that with one dose can cure several sexually transmitted diseases? NO, but that is a fact. Why is it not in one of these books?

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

Pathetic. Are you really trying to make people believe that you have checked every one of the major universities? Did you try looking at some of the small ones? You have made this statement so many times now it appears that it is the only thing you know how to say. I even started to think that someone had set up a bot for a while, but they are usually better at arguing their point of view.

I even gave you a link to one that does study things that some would call supernatural. There are several others that, if you would open your mind, you can find quite easily on the internet.

And if you want to have people take you seriously then learn to use the QUOTE function so that they know you have written to them. Not everyone bothers to go and look for replies.

Not according to the coordinate space between Banno and the cup. Or even panpsychism, — Posty McPostface

That would be the subject of another discussion, but I think that most of us have heard enough about Banno's red cup for this lifetime. No offense meant there Banno.

I heard the next big thing in science is string theory. So, it might strings all the way down. — Posty McPostface

Or tie itself in knots.

It is not a mere matter of classification, but the discovery that 'thinginess' as in having a definite size, shape, position, — unenlightened

Like Banno's red mug(or was it a cup). It had a definite size, shape, color but not position. He sometimes left in the kitchen sometimes on the porch. Because it had those characteristics it was Banno's red cup, but the characteristics themselves do not make the mug. There has to be an object to describe.

these are emergent properties, not fundamental ones. — unenlightened

I am not sure about this, I would say that it was fundamental for that cup(mug) to have those specific properties or it would not be Banno's red cup. And if he did not have a mug there would be no properties of it.

I would say it is an attempt to come to terms with modern physics; substance dissolves under the microscope into fields, probabilities, relations. Things are made of atoms, but atoms are not things.
Process and relation are the new 'substances', and so 'atomism' becomes a theory of human understanding (logic) rather than a claim about the world. — unenlightened

This changes what is being talked about from the world itself to human understanding of it.

The statement should not say,

"The world is the totality of fact not things."

but,

"Our understanding of the world is the totality of the facts we have about it, not the things themselves."

We always come back to the same point, is the world real or is it a simulation we live in?

To accept that the world is real then one must have objects before one can obtain facts about them.

I am not sure about atoms not being things them selves, if you can smash and dismantle something it must be a thing. To say that they are not things because they are the basic blocks to build things with is akin to saying bricks are not things because they are just the basic parts of a house.

Ask Trump.

The world is the totality of fact not things.
What doe this mean to you? — Posty McPostface

What are the facts about?
I can only see one answer.

That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

I never said it did, I said that science can and does investigate anything that there is a possible scientific explanation for.

If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material. — LD Saunders

Unexplained technology is the equivalent of magic. Unexplained happens are the equivalent of supernatural. All that is needed is an explanation, which is the job of the scientists.

If someone had said to the non scientific minded people of the Enlightenment that horseless changes and metal birds would one day move people around the earth they would have been burnt at the stake. The scientific minded would have said that it is possible that one day it will happen.

If enough people told a scientist that they had seen a ghost, he would not run out to find evidence of ghosts but would would investigate the cause of the peoples statements. Did the people actually see something? Was it a case of mass obfuscation of natural happenings?
Scientist are interested in finding an explanation for things that happen and whether you like the idea or not scientist do study the supernatural for the purpose of making it natural.

Science still does not have any idea about how much they DO NOT know about this world let alone the universe. So do not expect to see everything about the universe in the college text books you keep mentioning.

So I now ask you to answer a question, how do you know that there is not a material god in the universe?
If you can answer this question and learn to use the quote function then we might be able to continue discussing some aspects of this topic. If not, sorry but I have no time for closed mind people that think they know everything just because they went to college. I also have been there and done that.

Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings.
But there is no rule against them investigating anything they feel is worthy of investigation, and believe that science has investigated some really weird things.

Dogs bark a lot at night.
Science discovered that dogs can hear things that other animals and people cannot hear, like another dog barking a mile, away and bark because of that.
The religious people blamed demons and evil spirits for making their dogs bark at night.

One or the other is right I suppose.
Or is it possible that there are demons that dogs can hear and they make them bark at night and scientist have just not gotten around to investigating all of the possibilities and proving that demons and evil spirits do exist?

Did you check out the link I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

the concept of a God – one that is on par with the greatest conceivable being – usually refers to that being as worthy of worship. — Francesco di Piertro

If there was such a god, everyone would give unconditional obedience and devotion to it. Humans are by nature worshippers of things that are above what is considered normal, natural or beyond their realms of existence. Exceptional beauty, great athletes, great artists of all kinds, even Kartrashians backside are worshipped by many.

If such a god said do not kill, steal, lie, cheat on the missus, who would have the courage or desire to go against its wishes? No one, all would willing give up their free will and moral autonomy to live the good life under its guidance. Why not, there would be nothing to lose and lots to gain by doing so.
Unconditional obedience to such a God would not requireabandonment of one’s moral autonomy, but no one would want to invoke the privilege of moral autonomy because they would be living in paradise.

In real life everyone goes against its wishes at some time or other. Most people also think they know what is best for them better than anyone else(god included) does.

If an advance civilization came to visit us tomorrow and gave us all of the knowledge we needed to save our planet and build a future that is easy, healthy, and eliminates all kinds of barriers in mankind and asked nothing in return except that we use the knowledge for well being, what do you think would happen?
Would we be able to follow their simple directive? Could we eliminate discrimination and biases? Or would we still want to "do what ever we wanted"?

Dear Mister Saunders'

Please learn to use the "QUOTE" function that is incorporated in the forum.

When you select the text that you desire to quote, a little black box should appear on you screen with the letters QUOTE in it. Just click on it and the text will appear like magic in the reply box at the bottom of the page.
If for some reason clicking on the box does not work, try right clicking on it. I have to do that with one of the computers I use.

Regards