David Sklansky is an ACist

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said in your last response that theft in self-defense is okay. This seems to contradict that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also said that you still owe the owner compensation for what you took. I don't really consider that theft anyways (but that's beside the point); particularly because the owner would almost certainly voluntarily agree to let you have the food if he was given an option. Murder in self-defense is fine too. Rape in self-defense is, if nothing else, interesting and fairly erotic.

If you don't like the "self-defense" exception, consider that the whole rationale behind the AC/voluntaryism/property rights ideology is that we humans understand and evaluate future consequence. So, if you're about to die, the concept is irrelevant. Sounds silly, but hopefully that helps clarify.

Foal, I'll have to reply to you later.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that even people who mug would be better off if they didn't. The $20 I have in my pocket isn't worth the potential retaliation. People mug because they mistakenly conclude it is their best play.

People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV?

People *will* act as they please. So the mugger *will* act on the bias that tells him mugging is a good idea. To me, acting on a bias rather than eroding it is not entirely bad. There is some good to it too. But in my mind, the good sort of "approaches" the bad. I think of it as 9.999 repeating vs. 10. The erosion of the bias is always slightly better, even if acting on the bias, in some instances, comes pretty damn close.

And that, my friend, is pretty deep.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes. But take a mugger. How do you think even he would feel if someone steals his television set? I'm guessing he feels ripped off, and different than say, when he lost a big poker hand. The subconscious is tougher to trick.

[Borodog]

ALP,

I think an important concept that would help you understand the mugger more clearly is time preference (from a previous post):

A human being seeks, through action, to exchange a less satisfying state of being for a more satisfactory one. He prefers more goods to less, for therefore he can satisfy more wants or needs through their use (consumption). Furthermore, he must in every action consider, even if subconsciously, the time required to achieve his goal, for he prefers goods sooner rather than later. If this were not the case, and he cared only for a greater quantity of goods, he would always choose to employ the most productive methods of production. Robinson Crusoe would undertake to built a fishing trawler to catch his fish, and in the meantime, he would long be dead. But since to eat some fish before he dies of stavation, he demonstrates his time preference for fewer sooner goods rather than more future goods.

A human being also, however subconsciously, consider the durability of whatever goods he produces. Goods with a longer servicable lifetime will allow him to be more productive, and he prefers more goods to less. Therefore he prefers not only sooner goods to later one, but also more durable goods to less durable goods.

This is the phenomenon of time preference.

Every action requires some amount time to accomplish; time is scarce. A man's time spent on one action can never be regained and respent on another. Furthermore, man cannot not act. In sitting on the couch and watching TV a man exchanges the less satisfactory state of walking about or toiling for the more satisfactory state of leisure. His time is consumed during this action.

By acting a human being displays his preference, i.e. he displays his subjective valuation of alternate states of affairs or goods. Hence we see that, all other things being equal, sooner goods are always more valuable than later goods.

Hence, we see that man will only exchange the immediate consumption of present goods for the delayed consumption of future goods if he believes that by doing so he will attain more future goods that are more valuable than the current satisfaction he forgoes by not consuming the present goods. His degree of time preference determines how long he is willing to delay consumption and what premium in future goods he requires. The higher his time preference, the less willing he is to defer consumption, and the more valuable the rewards must be. The lower his time preferece, the more willing he is to defer consumption, i.e. the more willing he is save, and the more modest will be the future premium he requires.

Thus a lower time preference allows savings, i.e. the accumulation of unconsumed goods, i.e. the formation of capital and capital goods. Capital goods are goods that cannot be immediately consumed, but lead to increased production of future consumer goods. I cannot consume a spear. I must in fact forgo the satisfaction of picking and consuming berries in order to fashion my spear. But the spear once formed is a durable capital good. With it I may spear and consumer rabbits, which are far more satisfying than berries, for an extended period of time. I may be able to spear 20 rabbits before my spear is broken or blunted beyond repair. A low time preference allows savings and the formation of capital goods and leads to increased production of consumer goods.

But an increased quantity of consumer goods acts to lower time preference still more. As more and more wants and needs are satisfied, the remaining wants and needs are less urgent. An actor will be more willing to trade the consumption required to satisfy these less urgent needs for the savings required to produce still more goods of even higher value in the future. Since his needs are less urgent the premium he damnds will diminish and the time he is willing to defray consumption will extend, leading to ever larger accumulation of capital and capital goods, ever higher productivity, and hence ever larger quantities of consumer goods, which again act to lower time preference.

Furthermore, because the accumulation of capital and capital goods increases the demand for labor to increase productivity, the capital accumulated by the saver benefits not just the saver but non-savers as well. The saver exchanges some portion of his savings or production for the labor that his ever more efficient production processes necessitate. The increased goods (material wealth) of the laboring non-savers reduces their time preference, and they are themselves more willing to forgo immediate consumption for savings and accumulation of capital goods.

Society thus becomes wealthier and wealthier as lowered time preference leads to increased savings and accumulation of capital and capital goods, which leads to ever greater productivity, which continually lowers the degree of time preference in the population.

As the time preference of the population decreases, high time preference behaviors (behaviors that provide immediate satisfaction with little concern for long term consequences), like theft, murder, rape, rudeness, hedonism, etc. diminish.

Thus by ever decreasing time preference, society proceeds through ever higher states of civilisation.

[ALawPoker]

Awesome. I'll give that a re-read in the morning when I'm less exhausted.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that even people who mug would be better off if they didn't. The $20 I have in my pocket isn't worth the potential retaliation. People mug because they mistakenly conclude it is their best play.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't define what is someone else's best play. Mugging doesn't always carry a high risk of retaliation and even if it did, maybe the mugger enjoys the excitement of that knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they want to die or want attention/help, it can be. Mainly if they want attention, because it's not a very effective suicide method unless you cut really deep.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes. But take a mugger. How do you think even he would feel if someone steals his television set? I'm guessing he feels ripped off, and different than say, when he lost a big poker hand. The subconscious is tougher to trick.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmmm (trying to wrap my mind around what your position is). I take it you've given up on the claim that morals are universal, because no one would disagree with them. The people who disagree you say are making a mistake. Your position is that there is a set of principles or morals that are in everyone's best interest even if they don't realize it. But I don't think you can convince me of this. You can't measure everything by some universal scale of expected value, because "value" is different for everyone based on their differing psychologies. How would a mugger feel if his TV was stolen? Pissed off most likely, but mugging doesn't necessarily make him more likely to be stolen from (especially if he mugs the right people, like tourists etc. someone I know was mugged while a tourist in Italy).

[ALawPoker]

I'm not saying mugging makes him more likely to be mugged. I'm saying even he who mugs (he who makes a conscious error) has the same subconscious reaction as you and I. That tells me something.

To help you understand what I mean, I do not believe in "morals" in the way you might be thinking I mean the word. I don't believe things are right because one says they're right (or because God says they're right, etc.). I believe things are right only when you can logically deduce they are in your best interest. How can anyone (or at least, any non-theist) disagree with that? I actually hold the open and tolerant assumption of morality that I think you think is exclusive to your argument.

Now, what's best for one might not be best for another. This is because we all have different preferences. But *some* things *are* always contradictory to the (albeit ultimately subjective) value of human life and prosperity. BECAUSE HUMAN LIFE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GOT HERE WHIMSICALLY. When you consider human life and its prosperity to be objectively good (which, if you don't, fine), then it follows that the things which logically seem to encourage it will also be objectively good.

You talk about it as if what I'm saying is some odd subjective belief. It's pretty clear. If life and prosperity is good, then the destruction of life and prosperity is bad. Killing someone or raping someone is definitely contradictory to the interest of human prosperity. So, if you want to consider it still a preference, it's the preference I *rationally* hold. It's the preference our ancestors held for as long as we could reason some sense of cause and effect; and their consequence begs our condition. Our condition, to me, is objectively good. It's what I am and it's all I have.

People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad." Vhawk posted in politics a while ago about a study that demonstrated that (which, I forget the specifics of). But one study is not important anyways. How is it not intuitive? How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value? The problem comes when people screw up the application, and act with conscious bias. You seem to hold the belief that when people act with bias, this is "OK" or even "good." I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible. You might be able to draw up some instances where it *worked out* but never where the expectation was positive. Some mistakes get lucky. But we will not agree (at least for now), so I am essentially done with the point. Evolution is pretty powerful.

Nothing you're saying is illogical in any way. But you're maintaining an odd assumption about nature (that being that even if some action can be logically demonstrated to be to a species' best interest, that such species should not consider that action objectively good). You should read Borodog's post above about time preference. Then think about what happens if you give 10 cheeseburgers to your dog, and whether or not he'll be a happy pup 2 hours later. Then think about whether you would consider our preference to delay immediate gratification, and our conscious decision to encourage such actions, as "objectively" good, or if it's just some subjective idea that others can rationally disagree with.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying mugging makes him more likely to be mugged. I'm saying even he who mugs (he who makes a conscious error) has the same subconscious reaction as you and I. That tells me something.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see what this has to do with his own mugging practices not being in his best interest.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe things are right only when you can logically deduce they are in your best interest. How can anyone (or at least, any non-theist) disagree with that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don’t disagree with that being a legitimate way of looking at things. What I disagree with is that you can quantify “best interest”. Sweeping statements such as “behavior x is always in everyone’s best interest” or “behavior y is never in anyone’s best interest” never hold up.
I accept that your “life and prosperity is good” it’s a legitimate bias/preference to have in a vague sense. I also accept that biases and preferences can have rational and logical foundations. But I don’t agree that they are universal.
A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x. Otherwise you will have situations where both “x is good” and “y is good” and the two conflict in a given situation. If you can reduce everything to x then I think x would become so vague as to be meaningless (not useful).

[ QUOTE ]
People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad."

[/ QUOTE ]
When I disagreed with this you said “Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes.” Isn’t that admitting I’m right and giving an excuse for it? If someone disagrees then they disagree (regardless of whether this is based on faulty thinking or not). Are you suggesting with your mugger example that everyone agrees even if they don’t know they agree?

[ QUOTE ]
How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what this means.

[ QUOTE ]
I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree, but since you say you’re done with the point I’ll leave it alone.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're maintaining an odd assumption about nature (that being that even if some action can be logically demonstrated to be to a species' best interest, that such species should not consider that action objectively good).

[/ QUOTE ]
No I’m not saying that, I’m saying that you cannot logically demonstrate something to be universally in everyone’s best interest. And also that what is in an individual’s best interest might be very different than what’s in the best interest of the species as a whole.

[ QUOTE ]
You should read Borodog's post above about time preference. Then think about what happens if you give 10 cheeseburgers to your dog, and whether or not he'll be a happy pup 2 hours later. Then think about whether you would consider our preference to delay immediate gratification, and our conscious decision to encourage such actions, as "objectively" good, or if it's just some subjective idea that others can rationally disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both current happiness and future happiness are important. Are you saying that immediate gratification can never trump future benefits? I’d say that is clearly false. Both are important and need to be weighed against each other based on the details of the situation at hand. If you’ve ever eaten anything unhealthy and don’t think that it was a “mistake” then you agree with me. Of course one can find extreme examples where one clearly outweighs the other. By the way I certainly agree that humans are capable of doing things that aren't in our best interest. I'm not saying every action anyone takes is the action that benefits him the most. The actions that are in someone's best interest are the actions that best get them the things that they value. Since everyone values different things and weighs the things they value differently there can be no universal system of best interest.

BTW, link me to vhawk's study if you like.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t disagree with that being a legitimate way of looking at things. What I disagree with is that you can quantify “best interest”.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you refuse to look at human life and prosperity as objectively good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad."

[/ QUOTE ]When I disagreed with this you said “Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes.” Isn’t that admitting I’m right and giving an excuse for it? If someone disagrees then they disagree (regardless of whether this is based on faulty thinking or not). Are you suggesting with your mugger example that everyone agrees even if they don’t know they agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying that if you reduce a man's thought process, you will eventually either get to the conclusion that theft is bad or you will get to a mistake. Think about it for a while.

And stop thinking that every time maybe I word something unclearly or you misread me that it might means you might be "right" as if you've solved some riddle. This whole debate is pretty semantical, and aside from the fact that you're dead wrong, no one sentence here or there is gonna be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I tried moving away from the paste every sentence and add 3 paragraphs strategy, and really do not think it will be constructive. I'd rather you took some time to just explain your ideas more broadly, instead of merely dwelling on my words sentence by sentence.

I know where you're coming from in your assumptions that there is no universal goodness. And if I wasn't a human being, I might be able to agree with you. You should think about it more deeply. It really isn't a matter of semantical back and forths. It's really a paradox of sort. Ultimately it has become clear to me though that what's in the best interest of my condition is objective to me, and to you, even though it's biased by omniscient standards. Like it or not, we do share the same condition, and thus will share certain core values. Eating food (or in case you want to get real nitty, nourishment) is good. That's universally good. That's bad for no one. Deal with it. The idea that there's no fundamental good is really destructive, because it encourages bias. Consciousness is weird. It's a gift. Use it. When you don't use it rationally (and act with bias) nature speaks. And instead of remaining consciously aware, your condition will change to hardwire the correction (though I'm getting a bit fruity, and maybe muddying the point). Rational conscious analysis (as per Borodog's post) begs a condition with a lower time preference and which is more prosperous.

[ QUOTE ]
I accept that your “life and prosperity is good” it’s a legitimate bias/preference to have in a vague sense. I also accept that biases and preferences can have rational and logical foundations. But I don’t agree that they are universal.
A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't agree that everyone human values human life, happiness, and prosperity? And to whatever extent some don't, what do you think is the evolutionary consequence of that?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value?

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure what this means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man steal spear. Other man not like. Other man tribe agree bad man. Tribe abandon man. Man suffer. Man no baby. The rest is history.

It's not just whimsical magic that gives us that bad feeling when we do something wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Both current happiness and future happiness are important. Are you saying that immediate gratification can never trump future benefits? I’d say that is clearly false. Both are important and need to be weighed against each other based on the details of the situation at hand. If you’ve ever eaten anything unhealthy and don’t think that it was a “mistake” then you agree with me. Of course one can find extreme examples where one clearly outweighs the other. By the way I certainly agree that humans are capable of doing things that aren't in our best interest. I'm not saying every action anyone takes is the action that benefits him the most. The actions that are in someone's best interest are the actions that best get them the things that they value. Since everyone values different things and weighs the things they value differently there can be no universal system of best interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it.

Sorry, I just don't know how else to respond to this right now. I'm a bit occupied, ATM.

[ALawPoker]

Also, you insist that nothing can be universal.. for no reason other than that you claim nothing can be universal!

So I mean, ya, if you want to base the discussion on nothing, then the conclusion is indeed nothing. But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that), and am confused what the point of any discussion could be when such is not the accepted terms.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried moving away from the paste every sentence and add 3 paragraphs strategy, and really do not think it will be constructive. I'd rather you took some time to just explain your ideas more broadly, instead of merely dwelling on my words sentence by sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Let’s step back and look at the big picture of the debate so far. I’m sorry if this post is an especially long one.

Your claim is that murder, rape, theft and violation of contract are “objectively bad”. Since the burden of prove weighs more heavily on the positive than the negative, I have been counterpunching and will continue. Let’s look at your arguments in support of this claim.

Argument 1: (This is the most recent point of contention between us, but I’m calling it “argument 1”, because other of your arguments could be seen as being in support of this as an overall argument.)
You claim that everyone would conclude that these things were bad if they considered it logically. This is obviously a very tough point to sell and I don’t think you can do it. I certainly believe I’ve considered it logically and I don’t come to such a conclusion. You’ve even said yourself that I’m not being illogical. To try to convince me that these are the only logical conclusion you’ve brought up several examples (and I’ve brought up a couple).

1a: I asked why it wasn’t in the US’s best interest to break their contracts with the native Americans. You said something like “I know it’s bad, but to know why it’s bad I’d have to know the details of the situation.” How on earth can you know it’s bad without knowing why it’s bad? You have to have an underlying reason. That’s like saying
“All Tarantino films are bad.”
“Why is Reservoir Dogs bad?”
“To know the reason it’s bad I’ll have to watch it first.”

1b: You challenged me to come up with an example of a human society “rightly concluding that murder is good”. I believe I did so and don’t feel that I’ve been refuted in any way. This exchange ended with you saying:
[ QUOTE ]
So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live?

[/ QUOTE ]
and me responding:
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge the notion that it comes at “the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity”. I’ve already said that they may reserve more power and resources for themselves this way.
But my subjective opinion is that the society blows. I’m an empathetic person who dislikes racism and murder. I wouldn’t want to live there personally, but I’ve encountered a fair number of racist a-holes who may well say they’d love to live there. I can’t objectively call it good or bad, nor can I objectively point to any mistake. What is the mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

1c: You said
[ QUOTE ]

People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
I responded
[ QUOTE ]
If they want to die or want attention/help, it can be. Mainly if they want attention, because it's not a very effective suicide method unless you cut really deep.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where were you going with this?

1d: You claimed that mugging could never be in someone’s best interest, but from what I can remember you made no compelling argument as to why other than that a mugger would feel bad if stolen from and that that “tells you something”.

1e: You say
[ QUOTE ]
Eating food (or in case you want to get real nitty, nourishment) is good.

[/ QUOTE ]
It’s good if you value being alive and healthy. You still could not build a system of universal “EV” based on a preference like “food is good”, because there will be times when other things that are “good” outweigh the “food is good” preference. Gandhi for example, for significant chunks of time, found it more valuable to make a political statement than to nourish himself. No matter what values we may have, besides something completely nonspecific and overarching like “Satisfaction is good,” there will always be conflicting values. No one value can ever be absolute. And hell it’s even conceivable that someone might not value being alive or healthy, unusual as that may be.

1f:
[ QUOTE ]
I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’ve already come up with examples and you haven’t refuted me in my eyes. Stating “it’s impossible” does nothing to help your viewpoint, it just makes you look un-open to critical thinking.

Argument 2: You claim “Life and prosperity are objectively good.” And therefore things that promote life and prosperity are also good, while things that harm them are bad. You say this should be a given. This is a weird paragraph by you:
[ QUOTE ]
So I mean, ya, if you want to base the discussion on nothing, then the conclusion is indeed nothing. But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that), and am confused what the point of any discussion could be when such is not the accepted terms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why why whyy would you have ever thought those were the accepted terms? I made it clear from the beginning that my position is that there is no objective good, bad, right or wrong.
Anyway, even given that premise I would disagree with you based on this argument I made earlier:
[ QUOTE ]
A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x. Otherwise you will have situations where both “x is good” and “y is good” and the two conflict in a given situation. If you can reduce everything to x then I think x would become so vague as to be meaningless (not useful).

[/ QUOTE ]
You ask if I agree that life, happiness and prosperity are valued by everyone. I’ll grant you happiness. I prefer the term satisfaction personally, but I wont be picky. "Life" is a vague term. Do you mean do they value their own life? Most do, but people who commit or attempt to commit suicide clearly don’t. In a broader sense people who support abortion or capital punishment clearly don’t value life in all instances. As for "prosperity", well yes people generally prefer to have money than not to have it, but some people give it a very low value in comparison to things they value more. You can never dictate a “right” course of action for someone based on the fact that they value prosperity, because you can’t know how their value for prosperity will measure against their values for other things.
[ QUOTE ]
to whatever extent some don't, what do you think is the evolutionary consequence of that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m not well versed in evolution, but nuns and homosexuals are still around and I see no reason why they wont continue to exist in the future.
One more response to this (and I’m sorry you don’t like me responding to specific sentences, but when you’re arguing for or against an absolute, being exacting is important):
[ QUOTE ]
But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that)

[/ QUOTE ]
So If there’s no way to prove it then why do you claim that <u>everyone</u> would agree with you if they didn’t engage in faulty thinking? Do we need to just have faith? Should we accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior too while we’re at it?

Argument 3: You said
[ QUOTE ]
Also, you insist that nothing can be universal.. for no reason other than that you claim nothing can be universal!

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said that “nothing can be universal”. I said “nothing can be universally good or bad”. I’d actually be willing to grant you “personal happiness” or “personal satisfaction” as universally good among humans, since everything we value pretty much boils down to this. Like “I find giving money to charity satisfying” or “I find raping children satisfying” etcetera. By universally good in this sense I don’t mean that what’s good for one individual will be good for the group as a whole, I just mean that there’s a measure of “goodness” you could apply to every individual (human or not). I view this more as a definition of what “goodness” is than part of a listing such as “a is good, b is not good…”
I also never applied this reasoning that you’re putting into my mouth, that I’m basing my claim on nothing other than my claim itself. I’m basing it on the fact that it’s not refutable. I can’t prove a negative to you, the burden of proof is on you.

I think that pretty much sums up the main points. If you think I’ve missed anything important, feel free to point it out.

Oh and in response to your PM, I’m sure your intentions are good, but do you not see how ridiculously condescending and presumptuous that is? Deal with my logic, please, not your crude perceptions of my psychology. You really are coming off like a religious missionary and your debate also seems to be degenerating into pointless statements like “really think about it”, “you don’t get it”, “it’s impossible” or “deal with it”.