Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Subduction Zone]

Going back to your question and the quote in this reply, if the majority of people thought raping little girls was moral then it would be objectively correct since it would be the product of evolution and natural selection. Is this correct?

Perhaps it could be phrased better. For example in lions when a new male kills or drives off the old male any fairly recent cubs are killed by the newcomer. That causes the females to reenter estrous. His genes may be better that would be a plus. I am not going to even try to find an evolutionary advantage to rape.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So, in the situation described, the killing of the terrorist is justified, immoral, but a good? is that correct?

or would it be a bad? Should the sniper feel bad about killing the terrorist in that situation?

Exactly what part don't you understand? Is the act of killing a moral action? No, by definition. Are the sniper and terrorists human beings? Yes. Does a moral act cause the greatest amount of harm to another human being? No, by definition. Can the terrorist cause the greatest amount of harm to other humans? Yes. Does an immoral act cause the least amount of harm? No, by definition. Can an immoral act be justified? Yes. Are there exceptions to when the act of killing may be considered morally justified? Possibly, where there is consent, imminent death and long term suffering. But only under the strictest of conditions, and when there is absolutely no other options.

So again, the act of killing, or harming another human is objectively repulsive and immoral. It does not represent the core message of what true morality stands for, or is defined as. Obviously there are still those that have not yet evolved a natural aversion towards suffering and violence. For some, any act of violence is no longer an affront to their sensibility and psyche. What people like you see as a good act of killing another human being, I see as a sad and tragic loss of another human spirit. Since the act of killing causes harm, it is not a moral act. Therefore, it is only the reason for the act that must be considered as justifiable, unjustifiable, excusable, culpable, or accidental, not the act itself. Period. What about the terrorist's family and friends? Wouldn't this act cause suffering and pain to them?

 

[ArtieE]

If people were made of flour, would they be loaves of bread? Yes/no?

"But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?"

Yes or no?

Of course if you answer yes it would mean that absolutely everything is right just as long as people are of the subjective opinion that it is and if you answer no what is right isn't subjective. No wonder you won't answer...

 

[ArtieE]

Going back to your question and the quote in this reply, if the majority of people thought raping little girls was moral then it would be objectively correct since it would be the product of evolution and natural selection. Is this correct?

No. Evolution and natural selection automatically selects for behavior that is beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society and citizens. A society where people help each other survives and prospers and produces lots of offspring, a society where everybody kill each other for fun doesn't survive. That is the grounding for why helping each other is right and killing each other for fun is wrong. Not subjective human opinion.

 

[ArtieE]

Exactly what part don't you understand? Is the act of killing a moral action? No, by definition. Are the sniper and terrorists human beings? Yes. Does a moral act cause the greatest amount of harm to another human being? No, by definition. Can the terrorist cause the greatest amount of harm to other humans? Yes. Does an immoral act cause the least amount of harm? No, by definition. Can an immoral act be justified? Yes. Are there exceptions to when the act of killing may be considered morally justified? Possibly, where there is consent, imminent death and long term suffering. But only under the strictest of conditions, and when there is absolutely no other options.

So again, the act of killing, or harming another human is objectively repulsive and immoral. It does not represent the core message of what true morality stands for, or is defined as. Obviously there are still those that have not yet evolved a natural aversion towards suffering and violence. For some, any act of violence is no longer an affront to their sensibility and psyche. What people like you see as a good act of killing another human being, I see as a sad and tragic loss of another human spirit. Since the act of killing causes harm, it is not a moral act. Therefore, it is only the reason for the act that must be considered as justifiable, unjustifiable, excusable, culpable, or accidental, not the act itself. Period. What about the terrorist's family and friends? Wouldn't this act cause suffering and pain to them?

You can't possibly mean that saving a room full of school children from being blown up by some bomber is objectively repulsive and immoral?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Many children believe that the Sun moves about the Earth. The very idea that children have an accurate picture of how physics and nature works is laughable. They don't.

On top of that, you are once again defining morality by what humans think about morality. That is subjective morality. Objective morality would require you to reference something independent of humans.



Subjective moralities can be hardwired. Being hardwired does not make morality objective.



I would say that you clearly don't understand what objective is. Objective means that it is independent of humans. Period. The circumference of the Earth is an objective measure because it is independent of the person making the claim. The circumference of the Earth can be determined independently of all humans. Not so for morality.

If you base morality on what humans think of morality, then it is, by definition, subjective.



Being the products of our genes does not make it objective because it is still dependent on humans.

Firstly, no one in the right mind would think that a 4 month old child has a basic understanding of the principles of science. So don't misrepresent my meaning. Why does a child hesitate when crawling past a ledge, even if there is hard plate of glass for him to crawl onto? Why do babies instinctively dog-paddle when tossed into the water? Why do babies instinctively grasp for an objects when suspended into the air and let go? Why do babies know to move around some objects and not try to go through them? These are all objective traits/instincts hardwired into each of us through evolution. They are expressed through our sub-consciousness by our genes and alleles. So NO, babies do not have a conceptual understanding of what quantum entanglement and physics are, or what wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle are either. But they are objectively hardwired with enough understanding of "baby" science to navigate successfully through their environment. Hence their hardwired objective dependence on, and mimicry of adults for guidance.

Let's talk about this subjective and objective perspective that you keep trumpeting ad nauseum. Everything that we think of, experience, or are aware of, is subjective. Ever since we became self-aware, we became trapped within this subjective perspective. Unless you believe we can "mind melt" with others, or see ourselves from outside of ourselves. To have this subjective perspective, we only need to be consciously aware of our existence. The objective perspective couldn't care less if we exist or not. The moon will still exist whether someone is looking at it or not. In this sense the moon can exist outside of our subjective perspective. Right? Therefore the moon does not require our presence, or our awareness of its existence. Right? From the subjective perspective, there is no objective reality. From an objective perspective, there is only subjective perspectives. Our subjective perspective is totally limited by the functioning of our sensory organs.

Since we don't have a "hive consciousness", objective morality can't exist. It will always be subjective.The question now becomes, how did we evolve our moral sense of justice? It is this process that must be objective, like evolving two arms, legs, or being symmetrical. Nature itself is objectively random. But after billions of years of trial and error(99.9% extinct species), this randomness can appear systematic or having a specific direction. One direction is to increase the organism's chances for survival(as opposed to extinction), by instilling or programming genes that are conducive towards the organism's survival. The expression of these genes are objectively subjective to the organism. That is, we can't control how they are expressed, but we can be aware of their expression. These genes installed will control our basic instincts and needs(water, hunger, fear, and sex). They will also control our herding and tribal instincts. As our brain evolves, these objective instincts will become more discernable and refined. We have learned that it was better to cooperate than compete. That it is better not to cause harm to others, than to cause harm.This genetic information governing our subjective behavior, is the result of the inherited traits from thousands of previous generations. Just as our traits are evolving today, so will our concept of morality(movie censorships, levels of violence, religious intolerance).

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You can't possibly mean that saving a room full of school children from being blown up by some bomber is objectively repulsive and immoral?

Who said anything about saving a room full of children from being blown-up as being objectively repulsive and immoral. Try not to make silly assumptions, by misrepresenting whatever I say. I don't know how many ways I can make this any more simple. It is the act of killing that is the violence that is objectively repulsive and immoral, NOT SAVING THE CHILDREN FROM BEING BLOWN-UP. So, read my post again, and this time with a more open mind, to avoid your self-serving cherry-picking.

I have been around violence and death most of my life. There is NO morality in wanton death and blatant violence. I have seen the creeping complacency and desensitivity erode the core value of our morality over the years. We have reached the point where students beaten to death at demonstration by cops is not only right, but is morally right. Cops shooting unarmed or mentally handicapped suspects, also is morally right. The action seems less important, than to the reason behind the action.

Why don't we just change the definition of a moral act, and extend whatever parts of the definition we choose, to support our conclusion? I simply like the part that states THOU SHALT DO NO HARM.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No. A moral action is a right action. An immoral action is a wrong action. A moral action can't possibly be a wrong action. That would be a contradiction in terms.A moral action is a good action and can't possibly be morally bad. That would be a contradiction in terms.To do what's moral is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the well-being and survival of the society and the people in it. Nothing negative about that.I have no problems with that position unless it leads to people not killing terrorists before they can set off a bomb in a crowd because you say that act of killing would be intrinsically wrong/evil.No. The moral act would be to throw themselves overboard voluntarily. Or else draw straws. Or wait for somebody to die. Since there are moral alternatives available throwing somebody overboard against their will would be immoral.

If a moral act can't possibly be wrong, does that mean that an immoral act can't possibly be right? I get it, moral act right, immoral act wrong, moral act never wrong, where is the contradiction? No one has stated that a moral act is bad, so spare me the straw man. A moral act is always good or right. I have no problem with your definition, except it also includes "ALL" people in society. This includes the terrorist as well. Your statement "...unless it leads to people not killing terrorists" , is disturbing and certainly an example of the mindless immoral mob mentality. I have no doubt that any excuse would do for you to go and kill that terrorist.

You do realize regarding the raft, that you are saying that whenever any moral alternatives exist, any violence that benefits or protects the majority, is an immoral act. I certainly agree. Of course this contradicts what you have said earlier.

 

[ArtieE]

Who said anything about saving a room full of children from being blown-up as being objectively repulsive and immoral. Try not to make silly assumptions, by misrepresenting whatever I say. I don't know how many ways I can make this any more simple. It is the act of killing that is the violence that is objectively repulsive and immoral, NOT SAVING THE CHILDREN FROM BEING BLOWN-UP. So, read my post again, and this time with a more open mind, to avoid your self-serving cherry-picking.

Killing the terrorist and saving the children aren't two separate acts. Killing the terrorist = saving the children.

Why don't we just change the definition of a moral act, and extend whatever parts of the definition we choose, to support our conclusion? I simply like the part that states THOU SHALT DO NO HARM.

That part might get me killed if somebody tries to kill me and somebody else could have prevented that by harming my attacker. So I hate that part just on its own. I prefer THOU SHALT DO NO HARM UNLESS NOT DOING HARM LEADS TO MORE HARM BEING DONE. The whole point of having a rule against doing harm you see is to minimize the amount of harm done.

 

[ArtieE]

You do realize regarding the raft, that you are saying that whenever any moral alternatives exist, any violence that benefits or protects the majority, is an immoral act. I certainly agree. Of course this contradicts what you have said earlier.

Contradicts what?

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly what part don't you understand? Is the act of killing a moral action? No, by definition. Are the sniper and terrorists human beings? Yes. Does a moral act cause the greatest amount of harm to another human being? No, by definition. Can the terrorist cause the greatest amount of harm to other humans? Yes. Does an immoral act cause the least amount of harm? No, by definition. Can an immoral act be justified? Yes. Are there exceptions to when the act of killing may be considered morally justified? Possibly, where there is consent, imminent death and long term suffering. But only under the strictest of conditions, and when there is absolutely no other options.

So again, the act of killing, or harming another human is objectively repulsive and immoral. It does not represent the core message of what true morality stands for, or is defined as. Obviously there are still those that have not yet evolved a natural aversion towards suffering and violence. For some, any act of violence is no longer an affront to their sensibility and psyche. What people like you see as a good act of killing another human being, I see as a sad and tragic loss of another human spirit. Since the act of killing causes harm, it is not a moral act. Therefore, it is only the reason for the act that must be considered as justifiable, unjustifiable, excusable, culpable, or accidental, not the act itself. Period. What about the terrorist's family and friends? Wouldn't this act cause suffering and pain to them?

So, your position is that the sniper should *not* take the shot since killing the terrorist is an immoral act?

Or that he should take the shot even though it is immoral, but it is justified?

And again, if he *should* take the shot, isn't the act thereby moral?

Yes, I see the sad, deplorable taking of another life. But it is justified, even required, in this situation.

 

[Polymath257]

If a moral act can't possibly be wrong, does that mean that an immoral act can't possibly be right? I get it, moral act right, immoral act wrong, moral act never wrong, where is the contradiction? No one has stated that a moral act is bad, so spare me the straw man. A moral act is always good or right. I have no problem with your definition, except it also includes "ALL" people in society. This includes the terrorist as well. Your statement "...unless it leads to people not killing terrorists" , is disturbing and certainly an example of the mindless immoral mob mentality. I have no doubt that any excuse would do for you to go and kill that terrorist.

You do realize regarding the raft, that you are saying that whenever any moral alternatives exist, any violence that benefits or protects the majority, is an immoral act. I certainly agree. Of course this contradicts what you have said earlier.

Sorry, but in this scenario, the sniper who kills the terrorist is a hero. The act was good, so it was moral.

 

[Polymath257]

Who said anything about saving a room full of children from being blown-up as being objectively repulsive and immoral. Try not to make silly assumptions, by misrepresenting whatever I say. I don't know how many ways I can make this any more simple. It is the act of killing that is the violence that is objectively repulsive and immoral, NOT SAVING THE CHILDREN FROM BEING BLOWN-UP. So, read my post again, and this time with a more open mind, to avoid your self-serving cherry-picking.

I have been around violence and death most of my life. There is NO morality in wanton death and blatant violence. I have seen the creeping complacency and desensitivity erode the core value of our morality over the years. We have reached the point where students beaten to death at demonstration by cops is not only right, but is morally right. Cops shooting unarmed or mentally handicapped suspects, also is morally right. The action seems less important, than to the reason behind the action.

Why don't we just change the definition of a moral act, and extend whatever parts of the definition we choose, to support our conclusion? I simply like the part that states THOU SHALT DO NO HARM.

How about DO THE MINIMUM HARM POSSIBLE. In the case of the terrorist, killing the terrorist saves the kids, and is thereby moral.

 

[Audie]

"But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?"

Yes or no?

Of course if you answer yes it would mean that absolutely everything is right just as long as people are of the subjective opinion that it is and if you answer no what is right isn't subjective. No wonder you won't answer...

I wonder if maybe this is a kind of false question.

Do you suppose any of society's / mankind's morals
were actually decided on, as such? Hash it out
at meetings etc. Maybe not. I kind of think most
of it was codified long before our ancestors could
even talk.

"Do not steal" is a concept well known to dogs.

I doubt there was ever a decision, as such, or
a consensus on not raping the kids.

So decision or consensus to start doing so would
be very deviant. Of course, you do get splinter
groups like ISIS who declare all manner of things
to be moral and good. Does that make them so?
I will say not.

To all outside that group, those acts remain vile
and the perps are deviants, outlaws to be
hunted down like rabid hyaenas.

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is related
to this.

How does this seem to you?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Killing the terrorist and saving the children aren't two separate acts. Killing the terrorist = saving the children.That part might get me killed if somebody tries to kill me and somebody else could have prevented that by harming my attacker. So I hate that part just on its own. I prefer THOU SHALT DO NO HARM UNLESS NOT DOING HARM LEADS TO MORE HARM BEING DONE. The whole point of having a rule against doing harm you see is to minimize the amount of harm done.

Of course there are two separate acts. There is the sniper taking the shot, and the bomber being shot. The children might be traumatized for life, but at least they'll be alive.This scenario works fine as long as all things go to plan. Unfortunately, in the real world things don't always go to plan. In fact they rarely do. Do you really want me to give you examples of "the best laid plans of mice and men", that went totally south? Each act has its own set of variables. For example, the sniper can miss, hit the wrong target, cause collateral damage from ricochet, or is suddenly distracted or spotted. Or, the bomber might give up, the bomb is a fake, or the bomb doesn't go off, or goes of prematurely. If all people like you can't see past the end results, then they can always justify the cause in any way they like. Fortunately, there are still people like me that still believe that every human life has infinite value, and that it is immoral to take it away and justify the act by consensus later. Do you think that abortion is morally a good/right act? Maybe it is morally right if you kill someone and plant evidence to implicate a known mass murderer, or child killer, to prevent him from killing again? Maybe preemptive killing should become a moral act. Just how far will you go to be morally right, or morally justified? Even the KKK and neo-Nazi groups consider their actions and practices as being morally right/good, or supported by God or their ideology. They also felt that they are benefiting the majority in THEIR society. They also felt that they are minimizing the harm that was being done to their society.

So you are saying that the new definition of a moral act, is to DO ANY HARM YOU WANT TO ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WILL PREVENT MORE HARM FROM BEING DONE. What is amazing is that you have no idea the abuse this can lead to, let alone whether the act is moral or immoral. It is no different than the crimes committed in the name of Religion. It will only become crimes committed in the name of moral rightness. Only the names are changed, but the results will still be the same. Complacency and abuse. Let's just keep the definition of a moral act, as to do the least harm, period.

 

[Audie]

Of course there are two separate acts. There is the sniper taking the shot, and the bomber being shot. The children might be traumatized for life, but at least they'll be alive.This scenario works fine as long as all things go to plan. Unfortunately, in the real world things don't always go to plan. In fact they rarely do. Do you really want me to give you examples of "the best laid plans of mice and men", that went totally south? Each act has its own set of variables. For example, the sniper can miss, hit the wrong target, cause collateral damage from ricochet, or is suddenly distracted or spotted. Or, the bomber might give up, the bomb is a fake, or the bomb doesn't go off, or goes of prematurely. If all people like you can't see past the end results, then they can always justify the cause in any way they like. Fortunately, there are still people like me that still believe that every human life has infinite value, and that it is immoral to take it away and justify the act by committee later. Do you think that abortion is morally a good/right act? Maybe it is morally right if you kill someone and plant evidence to implicate a known mass murderer, or child killer, to prevent him from killing again? Maybe preemptive killing should become a moral act. Just how far will you go to be morally right, or morally justified? Even the KKK and neo-Nazi groups consider their actions and practices as being morally right/good, or supported by God or their ideology. They also felt that they are benefiting the majority in THEIR society. They also felt that they are minimizing the harm that was being done to their society.

So you are saying that the new definition of a moral act, is to DO ANY HARM YOU WANT TO ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WILL PREVENT MORE HARM FROM BEING DONE. What is amazing is that you have no idea the abuse this can lead to, let alone whether the act is moral or immoral. It is no different than the crimes committed in the name of Religion. It will only become crimes committed in the name of moral rightness. Only the names are changed, but the results will still be the same. Complacency and abuse. Let's just keep the definition of a moral act, as to do the least harm, period.

DO ANY HARM YOU WANT TO ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WILL PREVENT MORE HARM FROM BEING DONE. What is amazing is that you have no idea the abuse this can lead to

Most likely you have been fortunate or
sheltered in life. Real world?

You have no idea what it is to be unable
to defend yourself, in the hands of some
stranger who delights in hurting you.

Preach about it as if you had a clue.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. Evolution and natural selection automatically selects for behavior that is beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society and citizens.

It seems that you avoided your own question after chiding me for doing the same. Interesting.

Also, evolution selects for characteristics that increase the number offspring, not what is moral.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Firstly, no one in the right mind would think that a 4 month old child has a basic understanding of the principles of science. So don't misrepresent my meaning. Why does a child hesitate when crawling past a ledge, even if there is hard plate of glass for him to crawl onto? Why do babies instinctively dog-paddle when tossed into the water? Why do babies instinctively grasp for an objects when suspended into the air and let go? Why do babies know to move around some objects and not try to go through them? These are all objective traits/instincts hardwired into each of us through evolution.

What makes them objective?

Let's talk about this subjective and objective perspective that you keep trumpeting ad nauseum. Everything that we think of, experience, or are aware of, is subjective. Ever since we became self-aware, we became trapped within this subjective perspective. Unless you believe we can "mind melt" with others, or see ourselves from outside of ourselves. To have this subjective perspective, we only need to be consciously aware of our existence. The objective perspective couldn't care less if we exist or not. The moon will still exist whether someone is looking at it or not. In this sense the moon can exist outside of our subjective perspective. Right? Therefore the moon does not require our presence, or our awareness of its existence. Right? From the subjective perspective, there is no objective reality. From an objective perspective, there is only subjective perspectives. Our subjective perspective is totally limited by the functioning of our sensory organs.

In the same sense, if humans didn't exist would morality exist? I would say that it wouldn't. Morality is based on our subjective views of how we want to be treated and how other humans should be treated. If there are no humans then this morality doesn't exist.

Since we don't have a "hive consciousness", objective morality can't exist.

That is not what an objective morality is. Knowing precisely what everyone's subjective views are doesn't make those views objective. In order to be objective it has to be independent of humans.

The question now becomes, how did we evolve our moral sense of justice? It is this process that must be objective, like evolving two arms, legs, or being symmetrical. Nature itself is objectively random. But after billions of years of trial and error(99.9% extinct species), this randomness can appear systematic or having a specific direction. One direction is to increase the organism's chances for survival(as opposed to extinction), by instilling or programming genes that are conducive towards the organism's survival. The expression of these genes are objectively subjective to the organism. That is, we can't control how they are expressed, but we can be aware of their expression. These genes installed will control our basic instincts and needs(water, hunger, fear, and sex). They will also control our herding and tribal instincts. As our brain evolves, these objective instincts will become more discernable and refined. We have learned that it was better to cooperate than compete. That it is better not to cause harm to others, than to cause harm.This genetic information governing our subjective behavior, is the result of the inherited traits from thousands of previous generations. Just as our traits are evolving today, so will our concept of morality(movie censorships, levels of violence, religious intolerance).

Evolution selects for traits that increase the number of offspring that survive in the population, not what is moral.

 

[ArtieE]

Fortunately, there are still people like me that still believe that every human life has infinite value

Of course it does. That is why it's better to lose just one terrorist life than to lose the lives of a lot of innocent children.

Do you think that abortion is morally a good/right act?

I don't know.

Maybe it is morally right if you kill someone and plant evidence to implicate a known mass murderer, or child killer, to prevent him from killing again?

No.

Maybe preemptive killing should become a moral act.

It is a moral act. People get medals for stopping terrorists from harming others.

Just how far will you go to be morally right, or morally justified? Even the KKK and neo-Nazi groups consider their actions and practices as being morally right/good, or supported by God or their ideology. They also felt that they are benefiting the majority in THEIR society. They also felt that they are minimizing the harm that was being done to their society.

Well, are their acts beneficial or detrimental to the society they live in and its people? Do you have anything specific in mind?

So you are saying that the new definition of a moral act, is to DO ANY HARM YOU WANT TO ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WILL PREVENT MORE HARM FROM BEING DONE.

No, in this case it's THOU SHALT DO NO HARM EXCEPT WHEN NOT DOING HARM RESULTS IN MORE HARM BEING DONE THAN THE HARM YOU DO! If you want we can just put in THOU SHALT DO NO HARM EXCEPT WHEN NOT DOING HARM RESULTS IN MORE HARM BEING DONE THAN THE HARM YOU DO AND YOU SHALL DO JUST AS MUCH HARM AS NECESSARY. Since the point is to minimize harm the last bit isn't really necessary but we can put it in just for you since you seem to need it.

What is amazing is that you have no idea the abuse this can lead to, let alone whether the act is moral or immoral. It is no different than the crimes committed in the name of Religion. It will only become crimes committed in the name of moral rightness. Only the names are changed, but the results will still be the same. Complacency and abuse. Let's just keep the definition of a moral act, as to do the least harm, period.

Sure. If you have to do harm to avoid a lot more harm from being done you should of course do as little harm as possible. But isn't that obvious given that what we are after is the least amount of harm?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

DO ANY HARM YOU WANT TO ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WILL PREVENT MORE HARM FROM BEING DONE. What is amazing is that you have no idea the abuse this can lead to

Most likely you have been fortunate or
sheltered in life. Real world?

You have no idea what it is to be unable
to defend yourself, in the hands of some
stranger who delights in hurting you.

Preach about it as if you had a clue.

It's a figure of speech "TAKO". I don't expect foreigners to understand its meaning. Just stick to what you're good at, Sly snipes, sarcastic innuendos, disguised insults, and a delusion of intellectual superiority. Why would you think you should not be able to defend yourself, against any attacker trying to do you harm? Are you silly enough to think you should die, because you're afraid that you might commit an immoral act? That would be silly, even for you. Or was this just more of your silly inferences? You haven't a clue about my life, and judging by your level of insensitivity, you are the last person on the planet that I would want to be part of it. I've been robbed, assaulted, shot twice, and stabbed, so I do have a pretty good idea what it feels like. And, I always will.

Unlike you, I am far too intellectually honest to "preach" about something that I don't have a clue. So unless you have something worthwhile to contribute, other than demonstrating what a truncated writing style looks like, might I suggest that you prey on someone else to feed your already over-inflated ego. "What do you think?".