Sam Harris on "Free Will"

Just thought I'd share this for those interested. I've already discussed this quite a bit on here, but for those who want more details, Sam Harris does a good presentation on the subject.

-vrec

i just posted something about sam haris on my facebook u stalking me?

I just wonder wtf Harris means about universal morality without god. Brb watching the Harris vs Craig debate

^Saw the debate and I have to say Sam Harris didn't impress me at all. The god believing dude was much more to the point O_o
(he obv gave the cheap&low blows that one would expect a christian debater to give but still)

^Strange, I felt the total opposite. I felt Sam Harris went straight to the point which was that Craig was not proposing a universal morality it was that he was presenting an idea that propagated itself through forceful ways. Craig defends his points with rigorous logic but ultimately , he's defending something that is an absurd position to begin with. Craig's guilty of 'special pleading' in that he grants "god" special privileges and does not scrutinize the same way he would all other things.

i thought that sam harris did a good job in that debate. However, because there is no total position of objectivity such as a pillar like god to take the responsibility off us being objective. it proved somewhat pointless debate essentially just turning it into 'god doesn't exist, we're on our own' to be as objective as possible. meaning we cant be 100% totally objective thus pointless debate imo.

On October 08 2012 13:14 Syntax wrote: ^Strange, I felt the total opposite. I felt Sam Harris went straight to the point which was that Craig was not proposing a universal morality it was that he was presenting an idea that propagated itself through forceful ways. Craig defends his points with rigorous logic but ultimately , he's defending something that is an absurd position to begin with. Craig's guilty of 'special pleading' in that he grants "god" special privileges and does not scrutinize the same way he would all other things.

I don't see why you consider the idea that without god there can be no objective morality an absurd position. What is absurd is that he believes in god, but that's not what he was arguing about. I think Craig won the debate by far, he had done his homework and stayed on topic, whereas Harris from his second speech and on seemed lost and started attacking the absurdity of religion instead of defending his own position and answering the questions that he had to.
Tbh I don't even see how he could have done a better job, because there's nothing there to even hint that he's right. One man's good will unavoidably be another man's evil, they may both agree in a set of rules of behavior but that is only a social contract between them; to suggest that science can objectively "solve" what is good or wrong for all people seems to me somewhat scary. Not to mention that Harris doesn't believe in "free will", which makes his approach on objectively moral behavior even weirder.
Craig says "you baptize this as objectively good,on what basis?" and Harris answers "if you don't call this good/bad what kind of person are you??" giving melodramatic examples of violence or terror, or even worse he says " you do the same with your absurd god when you call him the ultimate good"
Granted, christians do exactly that but that's not the topic of the debate.Also, at least they admit that they rely on faith.

In before Baal comes in and declares that killing for pleasure is universally evil lol.

Yea I haven't seen that debate myself, but it's the one thing pretty much I disagree with him. It's like he didn't read Hume/Nietzsche.

edit: lol, I thought I posted this in my blog before I went to bed. Oh well, I guess it's not a bad time to post something that isn't UFC or some other kind of entertainment thread in the general forums.

I've seen William Craig defend this position once more and he even quoted atheist philosophers to make his point. At some point I wondered how someone who understands what he does can be so absurd about what he believes. Probably it's a side effect of his effort to be better in the egoistic sword fighting debates he has on a daily basis.

i definitely think that craig is the only mind that stands out to me from these debates that i respect quite a bit though obviously disagree with him. I find him very intellegent.

+ Show Spoiler +

yee, i see what you sayin

Checking youtube just now, i realize that i've only seen clips of the debate which all came from pro-sam harris sources im guessing lol Definitely gonna watch it when i get home

Yeah, I watched that debate just now and I agree with your conclusions lebowski. While Harris has good arguments against Christianity, Craig has him on the topic of morality. It seems evident in the debate that Harris went into his comfort zone of attacking Christianity instead of staying on the topic of objective morality. Harris' big mistake is that he chose to redefine what 'good' means (the flourishing of human beings), and to keep making appeals to emotion rather than explain how morals can be objectively grounded [in science]. We can have inter-subjective agreements as to what good and evil are, but we can't make them objective without a supernatural authority. Harris' performs a leap-of-faith to bridge Hume's Law and then for his defense simply says that we have to rely on something (axioms) for every knowledge claim in life and that it is silly not to do so.

Also, Harris doesn't properly answer the question at 1:47:20 here:



Which is basically my view (that this is the worst possible world). His response is quite silly. A universe where the lights are on is better than a universe where the lights are off because of what... because we "intuitively feel the sanctity of life?" lol. That's a religious answer you'd expect from Craig.

why is this the worst possible world? we have no comparison

On October 08 2012 16:46 DooMeR wrote: why is this the worst possible world? we have no comparison

Possible doesn't mean we have to have observed a different one (or can imagine one), but what can actually exist and last. Now this world is arranged as it has to be so that it can last, and if it were to be just a little different, just a little worse, it would cease to exist, consequently making this world the worst possible world. We know that some very small changes, like the ones in the orbits of the planets could de-stabilize our solar system, or forces beneath the earth's crust could erupt and destroy it, or the atmospheric conditions change so as to make life impossible, etc. This life we have inherited through evolution--a blind force that leads to the creating of pain and misery--being possible and lasting is enough for me to judge this world to be the worst possible.

yea but by that logic this is also the best world possible. in essence the only world possible for us.

it could be no other way than the way it is. not the worst possible not the best possible the only possible. if we were talking however about realities. And potential realities or universes that could exist. then perhaps we have a case for some discussion of best or worst. however talking about the world we have. its the only one that could exist for us. or else we wouldn't be us we would be others. so there are no worse or better possible.

Well, that's what Harris ends up saying too, and I don't really know what to say to that. The thing is, we know this world could be better if we aren't being fatalistic. There are so many things going on that don't need to be going on and that keep going on only because of ignorance, and arguably will always keep going on. And all these things lead to people (and animals) suffering. On the other hand, there's no real other way for it to be worse, its always been a gladiator war, a gory spectacle of organisms stealing each others energy to survive and reproduce and for no other real purpose. What can we say to: "wouldn't it be moral to destroy it all?" I really don't know, but Harris didn't answer it well if you ask me. Of course he was limited on time, that might be partly it.

oh i think it could be way worse. it could be post nuclear apocalyptic.this isnt as bad as it could be imo no matter how bad something is it can always get worse ^^

Yeah, we can imagine that, but considering the technology we have now, there won't be much of a world left if and when it comes to that. The Einstein quote about sticks and stones comes to mind.

ye so not the worst ^_-

I posted this on TL a while back. Absolutely love Sam Harris.

His views on free will are certainly very interesting and I am inclined to believe what he's saying give his expertise in neuroscience and given how highly I value his other writings and appearances. I'm okay with the idea of not having free will to be honest, and I think a lot of the hostility that's generated towards this topic (specifically towards Mr. Harris's views) are out of fear that we neurologically cannot control what our bodies do in many instances.

there was a thread a few months ago on TL about how pathogens and other things also help control our impulses to do things aswell. very interesting though i havent been able to find it

i loled at 1 hour mark (ish) when a kid in audience asked him "on a personal level" when this train of thought started for him, and he asks like 3 times what kind of personal experiences that led him to it, and he just goes around it

CMON GUY WE ALL KNOW IT WAS PSYCHADELICS

Don't have much to add here, but awesome guy, spent over 10 - 15 hours on him as well xD

Went through some talks, read some on his blog. Read the reddit threads, and the Youtube 1 hour ones where he responds to the top comments. Pretty sweet. Feels like he's got a lot of iQ. He also has a Ted talk.

And he has this thingy, where some muscles in his inner ear keep thumbing really fast. And they can't get rid of it, like some muscle spasm thingy. It's a bitch, cuz sometimes if u sleep to long on ur ear, you'll get it for a few hours.

On October 14 2012 06:30 longple wrote: i loled at 1 hour mark (ish) when a kid in audience asked him "on a personal level" when this train of thought started for him, and he asks like 3 times what kind of personal experiences that led him to it, and he just goes around it CMON GUY WE ALL KNOW IT WAS PSYCHADELICS

Lol, it was such a silly question though. He's a neuroscientist and has a major in philosophy I believe, so obviously he went to school and studied the whole free will vs determinism debate and there's nothing personal to it.

On October 14 2012 19:32 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On October 14 2012 06:30 longple wrote: i loled at 1 hour mark (ish) when a kid in audience asked him "on a personal level" when this train of thought started for him, and he asks like 3 times what kind of personal experiences that led him to it, and he just goes around it CMON GUY WE ALL KNOW IT WAS PSYCHADELICS Lol, it was such a silly question though. He's a neuroscientist and has a major in philosophy I believe, so obviously he went to school and studied the whole free will vs determinism debate and there's nothing personal to it.

are you guessing or know that he didnt take them?

I wouldnt be surprised at all if he did i mean... Carl Sagan probably took more acid than a car battery

On October 14 2012 19:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 14 2012 19:32 Loco wrote:   On October 14 2012 06:30 longple wrote: i loled at 1 hour mark (ish) when a kid in audience asked him "on a personal level" when this train of thought started for him, and he asks like 3 times what kind of personal experiences that led him to it, and he just goes around it CMON GUY WE ALL KNOW IT WAS PSYCHADELICS Lol, it was such a silly question though. He's a neuroscientist and has a major in philosophy I believe, so obviously he went to school and studied the whole free will vs determinism debate and there's nothing personal to it. are you guessing or know that he didnt take them? I wouldnt be surprised at all if he did i mean... Carl Sagan probably took more acid than a car battery

If I were to guess, I would guess that he has taken psychedelics at some point in his life, simply because he has an interest in mysticism and that doesn't get ignited easily when you are very rational and secular in your views.

But I don't think he came to see free will as illusory from a subjective perspective (if indeed he did) before having studied the topic objectively. Clearly, Harris' interest in philosophy started at a young age and it's just obvious that he'd get into the subject rather fast and that this is more likely than some kind of early special subjective experience.

Watched the video, logical, but still have some sort of dissonance between my mind and my heart. Well it's more like my mind and my other mind. I've always believed in cause and effect, and when broken down, I understand that humans are made of mere atoms, and all atoms follow physical laws, and therefore we do as well. And more than this, that like a billiards ball, some atom in the big bang hit some other atom which hit some other atom and is now face or in my brain etc. Still I feel as though I am making conscious, logical decisions through many inputs, and yes given the correct conditions, I will always come to the same conclusion....but still...damn.

Maybe you can watch some of Dennett's stuff and it will make you feel a bit better.



I think some of it is pretty silly, but I can see how it can comfort people. Compatibilism, that is.

So, I've been asked by Marshall to present a case against free will. Since I already made this thread a while ago I'm gonna bump it so he can go through it.

If you don't want to watch the long videos Marshall, here's a short one by Harris:



He has a book on the subject as well which is consistent with my own views.

Another quick video:



And a quick read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-...ee-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html


This should bring you up to date. If you want to debate anything in these I'll respond.

Fake and gay.

any guides on mediation?

You don't really need a guide for meditation. Like Sam says, the only thing you have to do is pay attention to your breathing, and really focus just on that as much as you possibly can. At first it's pretty hard, but the more you do it the less thoughts will wander in your mind while you meditate. If there are thoughts all you have to do is not attach yourself to them, not try to control them, just let them happen while you try to focus back on your breathing.

Two other things that can be helpful is to set some time (at first maybe just 5 or 10 minutes) per day every day dedicated to the practice. And if you have something like an iPhone you can download an app that has binaural beats and a timer to help with the meditation. Otherwise just some background stable ambient noise might help. I know not everyone likes those for meditation but I like it personally.

Do you even lift ?

Hey Loco, is there a specific time in the day you think meditating is particularly useful/effective, in the sense that it is easier to meditate? I have been alotting about 20-30 minutes a day meditating, but as you said, all these other thoughts come into my consciousness and I try and let them run its course, but sometimes it is literally 20-30 minutes of worrying because I am not working Q_Q

On November 30 2012 16:30 mnj wrote: Hey Loco, is there a specific time in the day you think meditating is particularly useful/effective, in the sense that it is easier to meditate? I have been alotting about 20-30 minutes a day meditating, but as you said, all these other thoughts come into my consciousness and I try and let them run its course, but sometimes it is literally 20-30 minutes of worrying because I am not working Q_Q

obv you get better by practising, keep going

lag/dbl post

On November 30 2012 16:30 mnj wrote: Hey Loco, is there a specific time in the day you think meditating is particularly useful/effective, in the sense that it is easier to meditate? I have been alotting about 20-30 minutes a day meditating, but as you said, all these other thoughts come into my consciousness and I try and let them run its course, but sometimes it is literally 20-30 minutes of worrying because I am not working Q_Q

Yeah, I forgot to mention it... morning is generally accepted as the best, because we feel "fresh"... unlike at night, when all of the stories of our day and what we've been involved in constantly loops in our mind when we try to meditate. Personally I'm always starving in the morning so I couldn't meditate when I wake up, (plus it would be awkward in the sense that you could just fall asleep again)... so a quick meal and a meditation session works best.

Meditation is pretty much impossible if you have big worries that are owning you. Your life needs to be simple and peaceful (imo). I haven't done a lot of serious meditation in the past because of that. I had to simplify my life first. The best thing you can do if you feel stuck and unable to do these sessions is to condition yourself to be conscious of your breathing whenever you get bored, have downtime or you're waiting. You don't have to meditate only when you're alone, sitting some place with the intent to meditate. Any time is a proper time to meditate and learn to shut off the world. All you have to do is be in a position where you don't absolutely have to think and put all your attention on your breathing. You can do this many times every day and over time it will become second nature and will make the larger meditation sessions easier, especially the first 0 to 10 mins from them.

On December 01 2012 13:24 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On November 30 2012 16:30 mnj wrote: Hey Loco, is there a specific time in the day you think meditating is particularly useful/effective, in the sense that it is easier to meditate? I have been alotting about 20-30 minutes a day meditating, but as you said, all these other thoughts come into my consciousness and I try and let them run its course, but sometimes it is literally 20-30 minutes of worrying because I am not working Q_Q Yeah, I forgot to mention it... morning is generally accepted as the best, because we feel "fresh"... unlike at night, when all of the stories of our day and what we've been involved in constantly loops in our mind when we try to meditate. Personally I'm always starving in the morning so I couldn't meditate when I wake up, (plus it would be awkward in the sense that you could just fall asleep again)... so a quick meal and a meditation session works best. Meditation is pretty much impossible if you have big worries that are owning you. Your life needs to be simple and peaceful (imo). I haven't done a lot of serious meditation in the past because of that. I had to simplify my life first. The best thing you can do if you feel stuck and unable to do these sessions is to condition yourself to be conscious of your breathing whenever you get bored, have downtime or you're waiting. You don't have to meditate only when you're alone, sitting some place with the intent to meditate. Any time is a proper time to meditate and learn to shut off the world. All you have to do is be in a position where you don't absolutely have to think and put all your attention on your breathing. You can do this many times every day and over time it will become second nature and will make the larger meditation sessions easier, especially the first 0 to 10 mins from them.

^ lol HUH??? but this is the worst meditation advices i've ever read. it's completely wrong and counter to good meditation practice.

one of the underlying goals of meditation is to reduce your psychic turbulence, if you only meditate when you're feeling good you're missing the point.

if something huge is going on in your life and you're very stressed about it that's one of the best times to meditate. if you're able to sit down in some meditation position , focus on your breath, and endure and push past any emotional or physical discomfort that comes your way as oppose to suppressing it, then you're on the right track.

i also wouldn't say that meditating in the morning is best because you feel "fresh", and i think there are better reasons for why meditating in the morning could be good--such as because it takes significant discipline to commit to something like that daily. moreover, unless your a zen monk it's probably also unnecessary and counter-productive in most cases if you do it daily.

That's not one of the "underlying goals of meditation" ... it depends what your intent is. What you're talking about is using meditation as a relaxation technique. Do you think every single person who meditates simply wants to relax? You're extremely Western in your approach to meditation. I approach it from a more Eastern perspective, with the focus on spiritual growth, so our approaches are very different.

If you have some big issues in your life that require action taken, it is not the best time to meditate seriously. You're more likely to experience peace of mind if you resolve your issues first instead of trying to no-think them away; that's what I was saying. What you're saying is that if you're overly stressed you will benefit from relaxing, and that's all. Meditation has higher goals than simple relaxation. And how can simple advice like "simplify your life before taking meditation seriously" be "the worst meditation advice ever"? You sound ridiculous.

Why would it take more discipline to meditate in the morning versus at night or other time of the day? You didn't address that. By the way, I am no expert on meditation (and apparently you aren't either), I was just trying to help him from personal experience since he asked me. When I mentioned morning it is because I have used Vedanta practices as default, and while the more serious seekers meditate both in the morning and at night, it is generally agreed upon that morning is most fruitful. They, like Schopenhauer, agree that the mind is more able to focus on things in the morning than at night. Night is better suited to leisure:

"The rule on which I am here insisting should be most carefully
observed towards evening. For as darkness makes us timid and apt to
see terrifying shapes everywhere, there is something similar in the
effect of indistinct thought; and uncertainty always brings with it a
sense of danger. Hence, towards evening, when our powers of thought
and judgment are relaxed,--at the hour, as it were, of subjective
darkness,--the intellect becomes tired, easily confused, and unable
to get at the bottom of things; and if, in that state, we meditate
on matters of personal interest to ourselves, they soon assume a
dangerous and terrifying aspect. This is mostly the case at night,
when we are in bed; for then the mind is fully relaxed, and the power
of judgment quite unequal to its duties; but imagination is still
awake. Night gives a black look to everything, whatever it may be.
This is why our thoughts, just before we go to sleep, or as we lie
awake through the hours of the night, are usually such confusions and
perversions of facts as dreams themselves; and when our thoughts at
that time are concentrated upon our own concerns, they are generally
as black and monstrous as possible. In the morning all such nightmares
vanish like dreams: as the Spanish proverb has it, noche tinta,
bianco el dia--the night is colored, the day is white. But even
towards nightfall, as soon as the candles are lit, the mind, like the
eye, no longer sees things so clearly as by day: it is a time unsuited
to serious meditation, especially on unpleasant subjects. The morning
is the proper time for that--as indeed for all efforts without
exception, whether mental or bodily. For the morning is the youth of
the day, when everything is bright, fresh, and easy of attainment;
we feel strong then, and all our faculties are completely at our
disposal. Do not shorten the morning by getting up late, or waste it
in unworthy occupations or in talk; look upon it as the quintessence
of life, as to a certain extent sacred. Evening is like old age: we
are languid, talkative, silly. Each day is a little life: every waking
and rising a little birth, every fresh morning a little youth, every
going to rest and sleep a little death." - Schopenhauer

"moreover, unless your a zen monk it's probably also unnecessary and counter-productive in most cases if you do it daily."

No, it's not. Even if you just use meditation as a relaxation technique there's no reason why 10-15 mins a day of it would be unnecessary or counter-productive. In the stressful world we live in, everyone can benefit of relaxing for such a small time-frame. Even really busy people find a way to waste a lot of their time daily, so it wouldn't be counter-productive. Plus, it's well understood that if you don't stick to something every single day you're most likely to not be successful in making it habitual and serving its purpose.

if you read carefully, i never once stated it was only a relaxation technique... though i did suggest that it COULD be used as a relaxation technique.

You, on the other hand, offered advice line with your statement "meditation is pretty much impossible unless you have a clear mind", which is just completely backwards in the eastern tradition of meditation and potentially damaging. moreover, you gave this advice to someone who was asking you for your opinion, someone who may take this opinion to heart. instead of trying to be right all the time why don't you take some responsibility for the bad advice you gave and be more humble in your approach.

change your ways.

You didn't state it, but you implied it. Anyway, it's a pointless argument, who cares. All I'm saying is you probably want to deal with big issues if there's some action you can take, otherwise your meditation isn't going to be very fruitful. It's better than nothing if you manage to calm down the tempest a bit, sure; but that's not the solution.

When I said "meditation is pretty much impossible without a clear mind" I used poor word choices. It doesn't even make sense, since no one has a clear mind; even when meditating thoughts will still arise and we'll find problems. What I meant to say is difficult to put into words... that you want to have a clear conscience maybe? Even that isn't quite it. You want to have the space to be able to meditate; internally, that is. If you have responsibilities in the way you're not going to be able to take it seriously - which might not even be his intent, but it was mine and he asked me so it's the only viewpoint I have. I was trying to say something that I realized from personal experience, which is that spiritual progress is impossible if you are dominated by worries (how am I gonna make money, how am I going to get out of this situation, etc.) ... I believe these things should be out of the way, resolved, if someone wants to take the practice seriously.

If the intent is to learn to diminish mental noise and improve relaxation, then I do think that my advice for simplifying one's life applies. I believe they go together.

I don't know what you are talking about with the bad advice. Was my advice damaging? What made it so bad? I gave advice from an equally valid perspective (the one focused on spiritual growth, rather than the one of Western pragmatism). So far the only thing you've been able to prove is that your advice would've been different than mine. And that apparently makes my advice bad. At worst, my advice was misplaced... not meant to be the right one for him. But you call it straight up bad. Now you tell me to be more humble and tell me that I just try to be right all the time and yet you objectively claim that my advice is bad and yours is good... pretty ironic.


Edit: Actually, I just looked back, and you didn't even quote me properly. No wonder I thought the words I used didn't make sense... I didn't even use them. I said "Meditation is pretty much impossible if you have big worries that are owning you." Clearly very different from "you need to have a clear mind." You should say it when you're paraphrasing. Before teaching me humility you might want to focus on your own integrity...

i recommend this course on meditation. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1933

ive taken it and i've been practicing for liek 6 months. i don't really feel like explaining thoroughly, but Loco seems to be more in line with what the course teaches than paradox. fwiw. im also no expert though

On December 02 2012 21:22 Loco wrote: You didn't state it, but you implied it. Anyway, it's a pointless argument, who cares.

"It's a pointless argument", *posts wall of text".

On December 03 2012 07:46 brambolius wrote: Show nested quote + On December 02 2012 21:22 Loco wrote: You didn't state it, but you implied it. Anyway, it's a pointless argument, who cares. "It's a pointless argument", *posts wall of text".

Because there was more than one point to be addressed and it's that one that I thought was pointless to argue about? Not so hard to understand.

On December 02 2012 23:06 WhyYouKickMyDog wrote: i recommend this course on meditation. http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1933 ive taken it and i've been practicing for liek 6 months. i don't really feel like explaining thoroughly, but Loco seems to be more in line with what the course teaches than paradox. fwiw. im also no expert though

Thanks for sharing this. I used this site for philosophy lectures... some of them are really, really good. I might have to listen to this course, it looks solid.

On December 02 2012 21:22 Loco wrote: If the intent is to learn to diminish mental noise and improve relaxation, then I do think that my advice for simplifying one's life applies. I believe they go together.

Why wait till your life is “simplified” before you meditate? I don’t disagree that simplifying your life, whatever that means, sounds like a nice concept. But waiting for simplifier times before meditation, is in a sense like practising a game on easy mode and expecting the same results as someone who practices on hard mode. In another sense it’s waiting for something that does not exist. If the intent, that is, is to diminish mental noise and improve relaxation then it doesn’t matter how much shit is going on in your life for when you choose to meditate.

Why do you think you’re supposed to sit in those poses? Because they are designed to be uncomfortable. It’s a much bigger challenge to focus on your breath, much less calm your mind, when your body is screaming at you to shift positions; yet you continue to be still. The shit that can go wrong in your life is a kind of pain that’s no different from the physical kind of pain that you’re trying to overcome when you’re sitting in those poses. If you don’t learn to deal with psychic pain while you meditate bare in mental solitude, how do you envision yourself to deal with them in real life? Or would you prefer to continue to compartmentalize them? Talk about simplifying your life, why not start by viewing them as the same, and likewise treat them so.

Moreover, some people don’t have the luxury of “simplifying their life”. Not everyone has the good fortune to be able to find a quiet place to meditate. Some people live in constant pain, hunger, threat. How would you advise them? In those cases all you really have is your mind, and your ability to breath. In those cases there’s nothing you can do to simplify things on the outside. And some would carry that farther and propose that you can only simplify your life from within.

On December 03 2012 09:44 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On December 03 2012 07:46 brambolius wrote:   On December 02 2012 21:22 Loco wrote: You didn't state it, but you implied it. Anyway, it's a pointless argument, who cares. "It's a pointless argument", *posts wall of text". Because there was more than one point to be addressed and it's that one that I thought was pointless to argue about? Not so hard to understand.

I don't understand.

^ the wall of text you refer to wasn't a response to the pointless argument referred to by Loco. Get it?

Get what?