Ecstasy and Christianity

[P A]

I was just hoping to discuss the topic with other people who choose to believe in God/Yahweh, but use drugs

Sure thing.

just politely state that you are not looking to debate (which I did, I think?), and leave it at that

Sigh. Yes indeed, and the 'debate,' as far as I was concerned, ended exactly there.

choose to believe in Him

That's essentially what I was getting at. If MDMA works for you, great. If you have misgivings about its use, fine. If you choose to discontinue its use for religious reasons, okay. But if it ain't broke...well, anyhow, that was my intent. Sorry if I made you feel...uncomfortable?

 

[ro4eva]

Sorry if I made you feel...uncomfortable?

It's okay, I forgive you

P.S. - You honestly brought up some good points. Kudos.

 

[P A]

But dude, that's just it -- why should this kind of response be expected and ordinary here?

But if it wasn't substantially different around here when you were the Commander in Chief, don't you think you're being a more than a little sanctimonious?

You clearly enjoy putting people on the spot who say things you don't see much wisdom in.

This practice is sometimes referred to as 'disagreeing with someone.'

To say any of the things you just put in quotes to someone in real life would be considered inflammatory, and would make the recipient of such a comment feel rebuffed, disrespected, and mistrusting of the replier...why should this kind of response be expected and ordinary here?

You've shifted the goalposts from the P&S Forum Guidelines to internet etiquette vis a vis everyday life. Also, my posts are virtually wallpapered with disclaimers that, while certainly odd IRL, are hardly dismissible out of hand. Either way, I fully register and appreciate your point, but I think that waltzing on in and promptly bitch-slapping me was beyond unwarranted. Next time you have a problem or concern re. how I run the place, care to PM me, as per, you know, the common, everyday etiquette by which you claim to stand? [If anyone were as forthright and pompous as you were two posts back, they would not be met with a very receptive audience.]

I have definitely met people who don't / didn't stand to get much long term therapeutic benefit from the drug, due to various circumstances about their lives.

And I know people who have suffered greatly in its absence, or in the absence of pharmacologically comparable drugs, which I assume fall under the purview of this thread as well (given that, to my knowledge, neither Testament refers directly to MDMA).

 

[P A]

@MDAO

See, here's the thing: You and I appear to have a very different idea of what constitutes a good discussion, a civil debate, and an open forum (yes, one with rules).

You assume, as though by default, that people who genuinely enjoy and seek out polite, earnest disagreement are concealing their true motives. You appear to subscribe to the view that anyone who actively seeks or fosters discursive conflict veritably thrives on such, acting as some kind of despicable parasite leeching all the feel-good heartiness and camaraderie out of your discussion. You don't consistently distinguish between rhetorical stress and bullying, mean-spirited aggression, and the like, not because you can't perceive their differing intent, but precisely because you believe that the negative effects of such are virtually indistinguishable. I'm not as certain about this as are you, nor do I feel as strongly about it as do you.

Drug users who are not unbelievers deserve a place on the Internet's greatest English-language drug forum where they can discuss their beliefs (and drug use within the context of their beliefs) without having their beliefs judged.

And I'm of the opinion that non-believers have just as much right to participate in such discussions (in a civil, on-topic manner) as do the religious. Conversely, any non-believer's thread should be just as accessible to the believing user as vice versa. It cuts both ways.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

But if it wasn't substantially different around here when you were the Commander in Chief, don't you think you're being a more than a little sanctimonious?

I think I did succeed in making a difference, in this regard.

You've shifted the goalposts from the P&S Forum Guidelines to internet etiquette vis a vis everyday life. Also, my posts are virtually wallpapered with disclaimers that, while certainly odd IRL, are hardly dismissible out of hand. Either way, I fully register and appreciate your point, but I think that waltzing on in and promptly bitch-slapping me was beyond unwarranted. Next time you have a problem or concern re. how I run the place, care to PM me, as per, you know, the common, everyday etiquette by which you claim to stand? [If anyone were as forthright and pompous as you were two posts back, they would not be met with a very receptive audience.]

Yeah, I was rude. I probably could have made the point better, but I just find your tone in general so offensive that I'd had enough and lost my cool.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

@MDAO

See, here's the thing: You and I appear to have a very different idea of what constitutes a good discussion, a civil debate, and an open forum (yes, one with rules).

You assume, as though by default, that people who genuinely enjoy and seek out polite, earnest disagreement are concealing their true motives. You appear to subscribe to the view that anyone who actively seeks or fosters discursive conflict veritably thrives on such, acting as some kind of despicable parasite leeching all the feel-good heartiness and camaraderie out of your discussion. You don't consistently distinguish between rhetorical stress and bullying, mean-spirited aggression, and the like, not because you can't perceive their differing intent, but precisely because you believe that the negative effects of such are virtually indistinguishable. I'm not as certain about this as are you, nor do I feel as strongly about it as do you.

All I can say is, I find, and have always found, your tone offensive, and the conversations we've had fairly unenjoyable. I'm very stereotypically "feminine" when it comes to discussions of the philosophical and spiritual. I'm here to listen and validate, and be listened to and validated, regarding issues that most people, myself included, feel very vulnerable discussing. I have something of a love-hate relationship with philosophy, because I'm not able to muster the calm detachment about deep questions pertaining to the human condition that most career philosophers and their fans seem (in my experience) to consider basic to their enterprise. I'm a reluctant critic, iconoclast, or contrarian. I'm just a sincere and sensitive seeker who's looking for others who relate. Sorry if I project a bit.

And I'm of the opinion that non-believers have just as much right to participate in such discussions (in a civil, on-topic manner) as do the religious. Conversely, any non-believer's thread should be just as accessible to the believing user as vice versa. It cuts both ways.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The problem is analogous to the problem of multiculturalism, though: how does one create a forum that's both highly fair and highly inclusive? Throughout my years here I've seen plenty of believers of various stripes arrive with what I thought were great discussion points, but then get driven away by posters who just can't get over the fact that they believe what they believe. Some may say that this is an unfettered marketplace of ideas, and if an idea can't hold its own under the best logical scrutiny the forum can muster, tough. I say that's a tragedy.

 

[P A]

All I can say is, I find, and have always found, your tone offensive, and the conversations we've had fairly unenjoyable.

As usual, I'm sorry to retort that (perhaps excepting today) this feeling has not ever been mutual. I've always enjoyed your presence and commentary.

I think I did succeed in making a difference, in this regard.

And I would never be so bold as to suggest otherwise. But as I've said, publicly taking the current management to task over an issue that has remained basically constant since your time here as moderator came to an end says far more about your true attitudes re. civility than it does about mine.

I'm just a sincere and sensitive seeker who's looking for others who relate. Sorry if I project a bit.

This is beginning to sound like a two-sided/double-edged sort of thing. It has become apparent to me that my task as a moderator of this board is a far more delicate affair than I had at first imagined. Your posts indicate to me a certain vital sensibility, one that I regrettably do not share, at least not in spirit. However, various events and thoughts in recent months have forced me to reconsider my approach to (amateur) philosophy, and, I suppose, my life in general. Truth be told, I am nowhere near as coldly analytical as you make me out, and I do share more than a little enthusiasm for the brand of discourse that you extoll. As you clearly perceive here, however,

I have something of a love-hate relationship with philosophy, because I'm not able to muster the calm detachment about deep questions pertaining to the human condition that most career philosophers and their fans seem (in my experience) to consider basic to their enterprise

the nature of philosophy as it has been historically practiced is most definitely at sharp odds with your idyllic scenario of unmolested openness and passionate, vulnerable sincerity. It is now clear that my job is to straddle and foster two mutually conflicting dispensations, the respective pathos of each in fundamental, atomistic conflict. This creates something of an internal rift that I will have to learn to reconcile with time.

I say that's a tragedy

And I say it's a necessary tragedy, philosophically speaking. Just about anywhere but the internet, the old, well-entrenched ideas die hard and slow. In cyberspace, the old and new are whirling at such a rate that they become contiguous, recognizably part of a larger, fluid whole. You just can't find that kind of intellectual gold-mine anywhere else. If I were inclined to be particularly crass, I would ask rhetorically whether you would prefer this to be 'Milk and Cookies and Spirituality,' or what. And while that subforum may actually sound somewhat appealing, I do, in all seriousness, comprehend and appreciate your perspective, which is certainly no less valid than mine (at the very least).

The problem is analogous to the problem of multiculturalism, though: how does one create a forum that's both highly fair and highly inclusive?

This actually sounds to me like a philosophical topic of some practical significance that I'd like very much to discuss with anyone interested. However, I'm not certain whether it deserves a thread of its own, or if it should be posted elsewhere.

 

[Asclepius]

I think I did succeed in making a difference, in this regard.



Yeah, I was rude. I probably could have made the point better, but I just find your tone in general so offensive that I'd had enough and lost my cool.

Must add, I have found this too, however I would have labelled it as egocentric and immature, over offensive.
Quite unacceptable imo for a moderator in a forum of this nature and clearly defies what has been stated in the guidelines...but anyway.

Do you believe it's a sin to use a recreational psychotropic drug - in this case, mdma - as a means of attempting to better yourself (or self-medicate if you will)?

I ask because, out of all the substances I've used and abused (and I did everything except for these "new" RCs or bath salts, such as mephedrone), mdma is the only one I've never regretted using because I honestly feel it made me a better person.

I was an antisocial kid for the longest time before using ecstasy and - even though it may be neurotoxic - all it took was one time, one dose to permanently change my attitude. That's how a profound of an effect it's had on me.

Reason I'm asking this question here is because I already tried asking it somewhere more conservative and it didn't go well. I'm hoping I can get a 2nd opinion per say.

Its fantastic that it changed you in a positive way, once you aren't damaging yourself or depending on it long-term for a sense of self(while neglecting yourself in the process), I fail to see where the problem lies.
Am not specifically Christian but do identify with a lot of the basic values, as they were taught to me. I see 'sinning' as causing damage to ones-self or others(which may be an overtly or hidden decision)...
Ultimately, it is up to yourself to decide whether it is right or wrong and what you feel comfortable about.

 

[ro4eva]

Its fantastic that it changed you in a positive way, once you aren't damaging yourself or depending on it long -term for a sense of self(while neglecting yourself in the process)I fail to see where the problem lies.
Am not specifically Christian but do identify with a lot of the basic values as they were taught to me - I see 'sinning' as causing damage to ones-self or others(which may be an overtly or hidden decision)...
Ultimately it is up to yourself to decide whether it is right or wrong and what you feel comfortable about.

The first time I used it - which was by chance, a close friend decided to give me one - it had such a profound effect on me that I would liken it to a spiritual event of prodigious relevance. The same way one may feel who's life had been altered by - perhaps - an intense LSD trip. The most significant feeling I can remember observing while in that state was freedom; like I had finally broken through my bottled personality. This was something that happened a little over 10 years ago, but I still remember like it was yesterday. It also spurred my interest in learning of other psychotropic substances. And after embarking on a quest to research this topic, my first destination - again, by chance - was Bluelight; and I've been around here since then (circa 2002) even though it took me about two and a half years to muster up enough courage to create an account.

Also - although, I was sincerely not looking to debate and/or defend my religion because I wouldn't like it if someone began preaching to me about Satan - I must confess that after going back a second time and reading through P A's posts; I perceive that he/she was actually attempting to aid me in preserving my aforementioned trip report when he/she stated that, "I say this not as a frothy-mouthed internet crusader of so-called 'secular humanism,' but as someone who would genuinely prefer to hear that your apparently benign, helpful pastime wasn't derailed for abstract reasons." Therefore, thank you if that was your intention P A, and I apologize if I wrote something which may have offended you.

 

[P A]

Therefore, thank you if that was your intention P A, and I apologize if I wrote something which may have offended you.

Nonono, I'm not offended at all, and you shouldn't have to feel the need to apologize. Depending upon how one approaches the issue, I could very well have been overstepping my bounds as moderator and poorly representing, what is, in truth, the actual purpose of this board, which is, above all, to foster and nurture discussion of whatever (appropriate) topic the OP sees fit.

 

[rangrz]

All I can say is, I find, and have always found, your tone offensive,

Really MDAO? I find P.A.'s tone and mannerisms to be excellent, and sufficiently polite. In any case, the rigor and rationalism he applies to his posts make the occasional bit of snark well worth it.

Besides, why does one need to accept and embrace all ideas? If someone is WRONG, there is no fault in calling them so.

 

[P A]

Besides, why does one need to accept and embrace all ideas? If someone is WRONG, there is no fault in calling them so.

I think MDAO takes a far more pragmatic/instrumental and far less rigid, axiomatized interpretation than do you re. the nature of truth, the value of reason, and the role of discourse in society. "Though you may be certain that one or another thing is true or false, even you must concede that there is a certain 'epistemological gap' that separates you, rangrz, from the world as such (whatever that may be), irrespective of all gradients of probability or calculable confidence intervals. Truth isn't necessarily an empirical matter." That is, for what it's worth, what I take to be the gist of his stance - and I'm just not confident enough in my own ideas on the subject to simply write his off.

 

[rangrz]

I agree that I am separated from the rest of the world by something, and that my empirical observations may not always be accurate. Yet, there is no better system for me to determine knowledge then that, so I embrace it.

I am rigid with my definition of truth, because it is self evident that if two people have two different answers to the same question, at least one answer MUST be incorrect. When it comes to religion, every religion/religious person has a different answer. I can not accept such a wildly huge range of different answers as being equally correct.

 

[P A]

I agree that I am separated from the rest of the world by something, and that my empirical observations may not always be accurate. Yet, there is no better system for me to determine knowledge then that, so I embrace it.

You appear to subscribe to some variant of the logical positivism advocated by the Vienna Circle. Though I do still identify with some of the movement's epistemological stances (particularly my affinities for empiricism and the physical sciences), I view it roughly the same way that most university philosophers seem to - as a dead movement. For instance, by what means did you arrive at the conclusion that experiment was the best means by which to arrive at 'truthful' conclusion? Experiment? I doubt it. You thought it up. And, if not, I'm sure that you can perceive the inherent circularity.

And what about questions such as "What is beauty?" How about statements like, "I love you?" Are these empirically quantifiable propositions, made up of atomistic units of meaning that can be systematically categorized and dissembled to reveal their underlying structure? Or are they something else entirely?

I am rigid with my definition of truth, because it is self evident that if two people have two different answers to the same question, at least one answer MUST be incorrect.

I don't just mean 'rigid' in the sense of 'unyielding.' I also mean 'rigid' in the sense of 'myopic.' I think that there is far more under the sun than binary logical operations that determine the truth or falsity of formal propositions. If I asked you, rangrz, and someone else, whether the (identical) food that you were eating was sweet, couldn't I, in principle, receive two entirely different answers? True, if you were to formalize the query, you would actually yield two separate questions, but I'm not certain that natural language (and the human mind, by extension) really works that way. Or how about this one: "Does the Mona Lisa possess artistic merit?" This is a much harder question to formalize than the first, and near-impossible to axiomatize and operationalize in an entirely satisfactory manner. You could argue that such aesthetic judgements are not, strictly speaking, genuine truth claims. But then again, you would have no way of definitively proving such a thing on your own terms. Conversely, if someone with religious beliefs asks you a question pertaining to and intimately involving those beliefs, bear in mind that they may not be playing the 'same game' as you are, as it were, w.r.t. truth. They simply have different (or unexamined) epistemological standards compared to yours. And believe me, as someone who's read quite a lot (for a rank amateur) on the subject, your views most certainly do not hold an intellectual monopoly in the discipline of philosophy. In fact, they're internally problematic, and quite dated.

 

[ro4eva]

If someone is WRONG, there is no fault in calling them so.

P A, please don't think I'm trying to stir shit up (or provoke you), just stating my opinion (you already said sorry, I am not butthurt anymore)...

I was crossing my fingers when I started this thread, hoping that the topic of discussion wouldn't turn into a debate, which I feel it kind of did when I was asked why I believe in Yahweh instead of Baal, Satan or Matt Damon. I hesitated replying at first, but for the sake of keeping the thread alive, I did, best I could.

I did begin to feel I was being taken to task in relation to miracles, medical errors and whatnot, so I tried to state politely that I wasn't looking for a debate. That probably should have been the end of that, but apparently since BL doesn't have a Theology and the Occult subforum, I'm bound to encounter some measure of confrontation among people who come around here seeking out intellectual discussion and critical thought. And I think MDDO thought that wasn't necessary. And, in truth, I did feel I was made out to be a fool because of my beliefs when I read that. And considering the rules, regardless how butthurt I may or may not feel, regardless that I admittedly cannot ask Yahweh to appear in front of you or myself (but wouldn't it be cool?), I believe MDDO thought that wasn't necessary.

Hence, why I also believe MDDO stepped in; and not to defend Christianity, but rather - in essence - not following zee rules (he could have been nicer about it, sure).

 

[rangrz]

For instance, by what means did you arrive at the conclusion that experiment was the best means by which to arrive at 'truthful' conclusion? Experiment? I doubt it. You thought it up

K, you're right that I kind of thought it up. But not entirely. I also came to that conclusion by simple observation. When I was getting "serious" about science, learning, knowledge, etc I was youngish, I remember I had just bought a 2 stroke motorcycle to beat around. The engine was not running right. It would bog and cut out if I rolled the throttle on. I thought about what was wrong, what could be causing this? I first thought, "maybe there is water in the gas!" So, naturally, I sucked the gas out, put some methyl hydrate in the tank, put in some fresh gas. Still did it. My introspection did not seem right. I was still curious "is the gas really bad?" so, then I had an idea, I'd put some of it into a 2 stroke chainsaw! If it ran on it, the gas must be okay. Lo and behold, it did!

Then I dove deeper into the issue and asked online about my model of bike. Someone suggested the reed valves. I formed am image of what a reed valve looks like in my head. I then took the intake manifold off and WOAH! they did not look anything like what I imagined. I changed them, bike worked!

That experience, where my experimental results (the gas period, the trying it in a chainsaw, what a reed valve looks like) showed me that experiment was likely a far more reliable method then introspection.

And what about questions such as "What is beauty?" How about statements like, "I love you?" Are these empirically quantifiable propositions, made up of atomistic units of meaning that can be systematically categorized and dissembled to reveal their underlying structure? Or are they something else entirely?

In principle, I think they are. IF one for e.g. could a) define love in terms of brain function and b) accurately measure someone's brain functions to a sufficiently large degree of accuracy and precision, one could answer it. Not being feesable right now, we use approximations of varying validity to attempt to answer these questions.

I don't just mean 'rigid' in the sense of 'unyielding.' I also mean 'rigid' in the sense of 'myopic.' I think that there is far more under the sun than binary logical operations that determine the truth or falsity of formal propositions.

A probability amplitude? A wave function? Uncertainty conceptually related to the Fourier limit (classical) or Heisenberg(quantitized)? Yes, somethings are fuzzy, but that does not mean ALL answers for them are equally valid. There is wrong, and there is wronger then wrong.

If I asked you, rangrz, and someone else, whether the (identical) food that you were eating was sweet, couldn't I, in principle, receive two entirely different answers? True, if you were to formalize the query, you would actually yield two separate questions

A few possibilities come up here a) you can picture the different people as being merely "sweetness testing apparatus" in asking each of them, you are finding the standard deviation/standard uncertainty when taking this measurement on different apparatus of the same design. b) you testing if one apparatus is defective because it gives a unexpected reading. or c) You can see it as asking a question about that persons internal, psychological experience of "sweetness", in which case it is still empirical evidence that people deviate from one another in that manner.

Or how about this one: "Does the Mona Lisa possess artistic merit?" This is a much harder question to formalize than the first, and near-impossible to axiomatize and operationalize in an entirely satisfactory manner.

I could sit here and make a formal list of technical criteria by which to judge a painting, and use it to judge the Mona Lisa. Within the domain of whatever discipline my list is used, it would be an objective, empirical answer. (Like how in the domain of medicine, a person's score on the Glasgow coma scale is considered empirical and objective measure of consciousness, despite the fact many philosophers may argue with it.)

your views most certainly do not hold an intellectual monopoly in the discipline of philosophy. In fact, they're internally problematic, and quite dated.

I never claimed to hold a monopoly on, well, anything. I'm not sure how they are internally problematic, I do strive for internal consistency as fundamental basis in my thoughts. I'm sure they are dated, I doubt "observe the world" is a new idea. Plus, like seriously, my background academically is in the hard sciences, my worldview and ideas on truth and not truth are based there in.

NSFW:

and to be honest, I think these two XKCD comics sum up why I am so invested in that worldview and why I hold it so highly.

I am generalizing the definition of "science" to anything which is based in empirical observation of the real world, and which uses rigorous logic to understand what is being observed.

 

[rangrz]

I did begin to feel I was being taken to task in relation to miracles, medical errors and whatnot, so I tried to state politely that I wasn't looking for a debate. That probably should have been the end of that, but apparently since BL doesn't have a Theology and the Occult subforum, I'm bound to encounter some measure of confrontation among people who come around here seeking out intellectual discussion and critical thought. And I think MDDO thought that wasn't necessary. And, in truth, I did feel I was made out to be a fool because of my beliefs when I read that.

I can't speak for P.A.'s intent or anyone else's, but when I do/post things like what have been posted in this thread, I'm not trying to take anyone to task. I'm simply trying to share my knowledge and learning with them, if I think they made an error, I want to help them understand why it is an error for their own intellectual growth, even if I don't, I will be critical both to help ME understand what information they have put forth, and for the general sake of rigor and testing the null hypothesis.

I think the other posters in this thread did things for similar reasons. (But yes, I have no good way to verify that.)

Confrontation is the underpinning of discussion. There is nothing to discuss if everyone agrees 100%.

Sorry for double post.

 

[P A]

Spoiler: rangrz

IF one for e.g. could a) define love in terms of brain function and b) accurately measure someone's brain functions to a sufficiently large degree of accuracy and precision, one could answer it. Not being feesable right now, we use approximations of varying validity to attempt to answer these questions.

As you noted, that's a pretty big 'if.' And anyway, I think you missed the point. Genuine expression of sentiment simply isn't a quantifiable phenomenon in the world today, and is not likely to be one in the near future. Because of this fact (which you do not deny), the most logical conclusion is that empirical observation as a means to validate truth claims has been devalued in this case, and fully deserves to be retired to the backburner for now. This case is not a unique one. I'll leave the next step up to you.

Additionally unaddressed by your post - the intrinsic value of sentiment is equally unquantifiable, even in principle. How do you feel about ethical propositions, I wonder?

I could sit here and make a formal list of technical criteria by which to judge a painting, and use it to judge the Mona Lisa

But that has nothing to do with the truth as such, and you know it. The Glasgow scale is a poor analogy, and I think that the above is nothing more than a dodge. Reread my argument.

I'm not sure how they are internally problematic

Did you read the Wikipedia article? Therein, positivism is described by one of its own proponents as "dead as any philosophical movement ever becomes," or something to that effect.

Plus, like seriously, my background academically is in the hard sciences, my worldview and ideas on truth and not truth are based there in.

Perhaps you should consider expanding your philosophical purview. The water's fine, I promise.

Honestly, rangrz, though I do very much appreciate your incisive, consistently lucid presence on this board and elsewhere, it is steadily becoming clear to me that what you are intent upon doing here isn't conducive to 90% of what people call 'philosophy' (and isn't particularly spiritual either) - in fact, I suspect that what you are practicing isn't even philosophy at all, but is, rather, a form of rhetorical apology for your own methodological dogma. Positivism has been thoroughly discredited by everyone whose professional opinion counts, which is about as much authority as you'll ever be liable to obtain in the field of philosophy. With this in mind, don't you think it's time for you to go back to the drawing board, or at the very least to seriously reflect before proclaiming the obvious superiority of your preferred (dubious) epistemic paradigm? Either way, if what you're doing around here isn't truly philosophical nor spiritual in its essence, I strongly urge you to reconsider before making a post that could be construed as overly aggressive re. truth, etc. Your ideas do have merit, but from where I'm sitting, they're hardly ironclad. Declaring someone WRONG is therefore, by my lights as moderator and by the addenda to the P&S Forum Guidelines, unacceptable.

As I'm sure you're aware, philosophy as a discipline is renowned, alongside the natural sciences, for its emphasis on self-criticism and its willingness to concede uncertainty and error in the face of conceptual conflict. Please consider this, and try not to emulate in tone the people that you claim to abhor.

@ro4eva

The post you quoted was rangrz's, not mine. Also, we are not debating the legitimacy of your worldview. I'm trying to explain the general situation of P&S to rangrz within the context of my and MDAO's opinions. It may be completely off-topic, but as no one else has made a strictly on-topic post in days, I'm not sure what the harm could be at this point.

 

[Renz Envy]

If alcohol in moderation is permitted by the bible,
then ecstasy in moderation should also be.

 

[ro4eva]

@ro4eva

The post you quoted was rangrz's, not mine. Also, we are not debating the legitimacy of your worldview. I'm trying to explain the general situation of P&S to rangrz within the context of my and MDAO's opinions. It may be completely off-topic, but as no one else has made a strictly on-topic post in days, I'm not sure what the harm could be at this point.

I can see that. I was directing my reply at his post but since it involved you, I didn't want you reading over it and thinking that I'm trying to provoke.