“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

I don't want to have to report you again, but I will because this kind of behavior is subject to a warning or an expulsion.

Truth is a complete defence in defamation proceedings.

They are lies, and I would win!

 

[pood]

IT IS YOUR OPINION that real-time seeing is demonstrably not true or not something that even could be true, which doesn't mean much, as you've gotten many things wrong, including compatibilism.

It’s not my opinion, it is a fact. The rest of your garbage that I snipped out is not worth replying to.

Yes, I tried to help you formulate your argument on free will and determinism. You rejected all help while at the same time not being able to formulate the argument yourself. You reveal yourself as intellectually bankrupt.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

I am not surprised.

I am a little surprised that it took you quite so long to realise that doing so shines a spotlight on your irrationality that can only harm your reputation, with no possibility of any countervailing benefit for you.

I’m not irrational. I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible. It’s just not the right timing.

And I feel I should point out that nobody else is under any obligation to stop talking about the subject, and how it reveals your failings, now that you have broached it.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

The phrase "Hoist by her own petard" springs to mind.

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

 

[pood]

She is going to report people for pointing out that the author is full of shit!

 

[peacegirl]

IT IS YOUR OPINION that real-time seeing is demonstrably not true or not something that even could be true, which doesn't mean much, as you've gotten many things wrong, including compatibilism.

It’s not my opinion, it is a fact. The rest of your garbage that I snipped out is not worth replying to.

You have too much of a block to even entertain the idea that seeing in real time is possible because it would mess up other beliefs that you hold sacred!

Yes, I tried to help you formulate your argument on free will and determinism. You rejected all help while at the same time not being able to formulate the argument yourself. You reveal yourself as intellectually bankrupt.

You tried to put this difficult proof for me at one point into a few sentences, and it wasn’t that good. I can’t afford to cause confusion. Maybe you should try again and I’ll either approve it or scrap it. If people are not interested in reading the first three chapters which are given on a silver platter, then… oh well. It will be their loss. I can’t emphasize that enough. I’ve done my part. I’ll just move on. I’m not depending on anyone here.

 

[peacegirl]

She is going to report people for pointing out that the author is full of shit!

Let’s hash it out in court. What you’re saying is pure slander, and I can prove it. It may even be a blessing in disguise because I would get free advertising.

 

[steve_bank]

Post 1

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Post 2

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the bet

Post 3

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.

PG, you have so far not demonstrated anything. We have looked for ourselves and reject the book.

You read the first three chapters?

Read as much as I could without laughing.

You have finally acknowledged that the image is formed when light reflects off an object and that information arrives at the eye with a delay. Now you argue we don't know how the brain works but the book does. You made a vague reference to the brain taking a photograph.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

Quo0tng te book is not proof.

 

[pood]

IT IS YOUR OPINION that real-time seeing is demonstrably not true or not something that even could be true, which doesn't mean much, as you've gotten many things wrong, including compatibilism.

It’s not my opinion, it is a fact. The rest of your garbage that I snipped out is not worth replying to.

You have too much of a block to even entertain the idea that seeing in real time is possible because it would mess up other beliefs that you hold sacred!

Yes, as I pointed out a number of times, this is your M.O. going back some 25 years. According to you we disagree not because your author’s claims are demonstrably at odds with fact, but because we are big meanies who are afraid of having our “sacred” beliefs challenged!

I have no sacred beliefs. I have no “sacred” anything. I have provisional beliefs based on evidence, and I always LOVE to have those beliefs challenged. Given sufficient evidence, I will change my beliefs. To quote Lincoln, “I shall accept new views just as soon as they appear to be true views.”

This is the exact opposite of you, of course, who believes in the truth of an idiotic book because your father wrote it.

Yes, I tried to help you formulate your argument on free will and determinism. You rejected all help while at the same time not being able to formulate the argument yourself. You reveal yourself as intellectually bankrupt.

You tried to put this difficult proof for me at one point into a few sentences, and it wasn’t that good. I can’t afford to cause confusion. Maybe you should try again and I’ll either approve it or scrap it. If people are not interested in reading the first three chapters which are given on a silver platter, then… oh well. It will be their loss. I can’t emphasize that enough. I’ve done my part. I’ll just move on. I’m not depending on anyone here.

No I am not going to try again. I tried to help you and you proved unworthy of my efforts.

 

[bilby]

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

I am not surprised.

I am a little surprised that it took you quite so long to realise that doing so shines a spotlight on your irrationality that can only harm your reputation, with no possibility of any countervailing benefit for you.

I’m not irrational.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible.

It's not possible. It's logically impossible, and it's also contradicted by a number of simple experimental observations that are available to anyone.

It’s just not the right timing.

Timing is the least of your problems, but sure - you would have been far more likely to persuade people to join you in your irrationality before the Enlightenment. You were born five hundred years too late.

And I feel I should point out that nobody else is under any obligation to stop talking about the subject, and how it reveals your failings, now that you have broached it.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

As I said, truth is a complete defence. You do not have the legal right to defraud people, even if (indeed, particularly if) doing so is your livelihood, and being restrained from doing so causes you demonstrable harm.

The phrase "Hoist by her own petard" springs to mind.

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

It is OK to admit that you don't know what that means.

It comes from Hamlet

 

[bilby]

I can’t afford to cause confusion.

Then you must be utterly bankrupt by now.

 

[peacegirl]

Post 1

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Post 2

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the bet

Post 3

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.

PG, you have so far not demonstrated anything. We have looked for ourselves and reject the book.

You read the first three chapters?

Read as much as I could without laughing.

That's not an answer. Not once have you asked anything that indicated you read it. You're not fooling me.

You have finally acknowledged that the image is formed when light reflects off an object and that information arrives at the eye with a delay.

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects, taking the object's lightwave with it, which then travels through space/time (eons of time) where that light finally reaches our retinas, which then gets transduced through chemical changes that create images in our brains, which then become what scientists call sight. Talk about Occam's Razor!

Now you argue we don't know how the brain works but the book does. You made a vague reference to the brain taking a photograph.

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Quo0tng te book is not proof.

Quoting the book is not proof unless it is correct. AND IT IS CORRECT.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
The next step is showing how the environment has to be completely revamped using these principles

So said Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and now Trump.

It's 180-degree turnabout from a free will, blame filled environment to a no free will, no blame environment. This means that all authority and control must be removed for these principles to work. That's all I'm giving you right now until I finish demonstrating the first 3 chapters which is the foundation. Then I will skip to Chapter Six: The New Economic World, which removes all government other than jobs that do not blame its citizens. Do you see how hard this is? Again, if I can't do it my way, then I will move on. This change in environment isn't going to take place tomorrow, but it IS the answer to a world of peace, brotherhood, and economic cooperation.

What happens when someone or a group decides to say the hell with all this and demands a change from this new order? What happens when someone becomes a psychopathic killer?

Your proposal is counter to our natural genetic proclivities. We are in heat 24/7 past puberty and like to fuck like rabbits.

A take on the old Charlton Heston cliche about guns, 'You will have to pry my free will form my cold dead hands'.


The old saying about hums is tryiing to herd cats.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

I am not surprised.

I am a little surprised that it took you quite so long to realise that doing so shines a spotlight on your irrationality that can only harm your reputation, with no possibility of any countervailing benefit for you.

I’m not irrational.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible.

It's not possible. It's logically impossible, and it's also contradicted by a number of simple experimental observations that are available to anyone.

It’s just not the right timing.

Timing is the least of your problems, but sure - you would have been far more likely to persuade people to join you in your irrationality before the Enlightenment. You were born five hundred years too late.

And I feel I should point out that nobody else is under any obligation to stop talking about the subject, and how it reveals your failings, now that you have broached it.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

As I said, truth is a complete defence. You do not have the legal right to defraud people, even if (indeed, particularly if) doing so is your livelihood, and being restrained from doing so causes you demonstrable harm.

The phrase "Hoist by her own petard" springs to mind.

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

It is OK to admit that you don't know what that means.

It comes from Hamlet

Pg
The next step is showing how the environment has to be completely revamped using these principles

So said Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and now Trump.

It's 180-degree turnabout from a free will, blame filled environment to a no free will, no blame environment. This means that all authority and control must be removed for these principles to work. That's all I'm giving you right now until I finish demonstrating the first 3 chapters which is the foundation. Then I will skip to Chapter Six: The New Economic World, which removes all government other than jobs that do not blame its citizens. Do you see how hard this is? Again, if I can't do it my way, then I will move on. This change in environment isn't going to take place tomorrow, but it IS the answer to a world of peace, brotherhood, and economic cooperation.

What happens when someone or a group decides to say the hell with all this and demands a change from this new order? What happens when someone becomes a psychopathic killer?

Steve, this is a typical question of someone who didn't read anything. You are assuming that nothing in this world can stop a person other than force. You're incorrect. Please read the chapters. They will help you to understand the basics, at the very least.

Your proposal is counter to our natural genetic proclivities. We are in heat 24/7 past puberty and like to fuck like rabbits.

No, we are human first and foremost, and we are born with a rudimentary conscience, every single one of us. Chapter 5 is related to this very topic. (Premarital Relations)

A take on the old Charlton Heston cliche about guns, 'You will have to pry my free will form my cold dead hands'.


The old saying about hums is tryiing to herd cats.

You cannot understand this paradigm shift from the vantage point of this world, so stop trying. It will do you no good.

 

[bilby]

Quo0tng te book is not proof.

Quoting the book is not proof unless it is correct. AND IT IS CORRECT.

All-caps is not proof either.

 

[pood]

Post 1

Hi all, I’d like to discuss a new take on the issue of free will and determinism that I think resolves this long-lasting controversy and has important implications for how people behave and treat one another. In fact, the implications are far reaching due to changes in our environment that are able to produce positive changes in human conduct. It is true that the free will/determinism debate has been exhausted, but I believe that this author has a novel approach and what this means for the betterment of our world.

Post 2

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the bet

Post 3

I hope I can get some interest, as the knowledge I am presenting is novel. It's important to mention that the author used the word God throughout his books but was clear that this word only meant the laws that govern our universe. If he was still living (he passed away in 1991), he may have changed how he expressed himself, but this does not change the value of his words. I want to reiterate that this is not a religious work. I know people's time is valuable and they don't want to read something they know nothing about. Maybe they will make an exception. This knowledge lies locked behind the door of determinism, but please don't jump to premature conclusions. The author was a philosopher but was forced to self-publish. He was not a part of a university and held no distinguishing titles. As a result, he was unable to reach those who could have been instrumental in passing along his work. His entire adult life was dedicated to sharing his findings in a way that others could comprehend. He wrote 6 books in all and thanks to technology, they have been reproduced online. The book I am sharing today is my compilation. Some people have said it's too longwinded. Maybe that's true, but it's important to remember that form is less important than what is being conveyed. Please keep this in mind if you decide to read it.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.

PG, you have so far not demonstrated anything. We have looked for ourselves and reject the book.

You read the first three chapters?

Read as much as I could without laughing.

That's not an answer. Not once have you asked anything that indicated you read it. You're not fooling me.

You have finally acknowledged that the image is formed when light reflects off an object and that information arrives at the eye with a delay.

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects, taking the object's lightwave with it, which then travels through space/time (eons of time) where that light finally reaches our retinas, which then gets transduced through chemical changes that create images in our brains, which then become what scientists call sight. Talk about Occam's Razor!

Now you argue we don't know how the brain works but the book does. You made a vague reference to the brain taking a photograph.

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Quo0tng te book is not proof.

Quoting the book is not proof unless it is correct. AND IT IS CORRECT.

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

 

[pood]

Post 1

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects …

So you are denying that reflection takes place. Beyond bizarre. You can easily test for yourself that reflection happens. How do you think a mirror works? Oh, wait, we had this discussion at FF. You remain utterly clueless.

taking the object's lightwave with it, …

The object does not have a light wave.

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

No one ever said that light carries values, The stupidity of all this is stupendous and stupefying.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Unfortunately you can’t answer them easily, either. Whenever asked, you refer us back to the book. Pathetic.

 

[pood]

Hey, @peacegirl look up! There’s the moon! The moon is not a light source. But according to you, light does not bounce off objects.

How do we see the moon?

 

[pood]

Wait, let me preemptively answer.

The light from the sun does not bounce off the moon, but it *at* the moon, and therefore we see it in real time. Right?

How pathetic that any person could believe such nonsense,

 

[steve_bank]

I don't want to talk about the eyes anymore.

I am not surprised.

I am a little surprised that it took you quite so long to realise that doing so shines a spotlight on your irrationality that can only harm your reputation, with no possibility of any countervailing benefit for you.

I’m not irrational.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

I’m just tired of defending what people here are set on dismissing without understanding why this model of sight is possible.

It's not possible. It's logically impossible, and it's also contradicted by a number of simple experimental observations that are available to anyone.

It’s just not the right timing.

Timing is the least of your problems, but sure - you would have been far more likely to persuade people to join you in your irrationality before the Enlightenment. You were born five hundred years too late.

And I feel I should point out that nobody else is under any obligation to stop talking about the subject, and how it reveals your failings, now that you have broached it.

They can say whatever they want, but if Im still here, I will report anyone who is purposely causing harm by misrepresenting the book in a way that is totally slanderous and causing harm to the author!

As I said, truth is a complete defence. You do not have the legal right to defraud people, even if (indeed, particularly if) doing so is your livelihood, and being restrained from doing so causes you demonstrable harm.

The phrase "Hoist by her own petard" springs to mind.

Dumbest thing I’ve heard yet!

It is OK to admit that you don't know what that means.

It comes from Hamlet

Pg
The next step is showing how the environment has to be completely revamped using these principles

So said Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and now Trump.

It's 180-degree turnabout from a free will, blame filled environment to a no free will, no blame environment. This means that all authority and control must be removed for these principles to work. That's all I'm giving you right now until I finish demonstrating the first 3 chapters which is the foundation. Then I will skip to Chapter Six: The New Economic World, which removes all government other than jobs that do not blame its citizens. Do you see how hard this is? Again, if I can't do it my way, then I will move on. This change in environment isn't going to take place tomorrow, but it IS the answer to a world of peace, brotherhood, and economic cooperation.

What happens when someone or a group decides to say the hell with all this and demands a change from this new order? What happens when someone becomes a psychopathic killer?

Steve, this is a typical question of someone who didn't read anything. You are assuming that nothing in this world can stop a person other than force. You're incorrect. Please read the chapters. They will help you to understand the basics, at the very least.

Your proposal is counter to our natural genetic proclivities. We are in heat 24/7 past puberty and like to fuck like rabbits.

No, we are human first and foremost, and we are born with a rudimentary conscience, every single one of us. Chapter 5 is related to this very topic. (Premarital Relations)

A take on the old Charlton Heston cliche about guns, 'You will have to pry my free will form my cold dead hands'.


The old saying about hums is tryiing to herd cats.

You cannot understand this paradigm shift from the vantage point of this world, so stop trying. It will do you no good.

Oh no!!! Not a [paradigm shift!!!

Post WWII liberal western demarcates are a paradigm shift and it is being tested as we speak. It may fail.

The notion tat there can be a global uniform ideology that eliminates war and crime across politics.,philosophies, race, and culture is fantasy.

The UN has failed in its primary mission, a place to resolve dispute to avoid war. It became a bloated bureaucracy and a sink hole for money.

The UN is comprosed of rubbernecker nationalistic states out to get whatever they can. Human nature.

Here in Seattle during the ritss our progressive city council promoted getting rid of curtailing the police. There were actually clams that police cause crime.

It deroyed the Seattle police. Officers left in droves. Repose times went as did crime. Criminals took advantage. Police no resnded to anythng but immediate threts.

Eventually sentiment changed, there was finger pointing as to why SPD got so bad. It took years to recover.

So again, what do you do when things are not so peaceful and tranquil under your new paradigm?

Somebody likes to beat up women.

 

[peacegirl]

Post 1

No, that is the thing he's disputing. Light travels, but it does not bounce off objects …

So you are denying that reflection takes place. Beyond bizarre. You can easily test for yourself that reflection happens. How do you think a mirror works? Oh, wait, we had this discussion at FF. You remain utterly clueless.

Nothing about mirrors disproves his claim. You're grasping at straws, but that's not surprising.

taking the object's lightwave with it, …

The object does not have a light wave.

I didn't say the object has a lightwave. I said the object does not reflect a lightwave that travels through space/time over long distances.

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?

If values are not in the light, then it has to be some other way we become conditioned by words. This is the missing element.

No one ever said that light carries values, The stupidity of all this is stupendous and stupefying.

That's when he realized that we do not see in delayed time. It's not stupefying if you analyze it carefully. If beauty and ugliness don't travel to us through light, how do we get conditioned? It is through words. He shows exactly how the brain is able to do this and why it contradicts the present-day theory of sight.

Still looking for you to p-rove how this philosophy changes human behavior for the better

You don't have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You didn't read the first three chapters.

1. Why is the will of man not free, Steve? (Chapter One)

2. What is the other principle that leads to his discovery? (Chapter One).

3. What is the two-sided equation? (Chapter Two).

4. Why can't someone strike a first blow under the new conditions? (Chapter Two)

5. Why does carelessness come to a virtual end? (Chapter Three)

These are clearly spelled out in these chapters. You should be able to answer these easily. But I know you can't.

Unfortunately you can’t answer them easily, either. Whenever asked, you refer us back to the book. Pathetic.

No, I created the questions, and I know how to answer them. But I'm not doing any more until people meet me halfway.