I know there will always be change, that's just my point; life will never be linear. There will never be peace or constant war, there will always be both, all ends of the spectrum, life does not discriminate. I told you, you can't have peace all the time, you need the counterbalance, the contrast to remind what peace is. Learn to read, nudnick. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Well, stumpy, if you would've read rather than look for something to use against me, you would've seen how I told you that it is my opinion that nothing would get done if the whole world was buddhist, and I made that a point when I first posted... And for the record, you CAN have a healthy amount of peace (though never totality because I've already showed you how life is neutral and not linear) and still get things done. That's YOUR own complexity that has you thinking because I said my opinion if the whole world was buddhist nothing would get done as being I would rather get things done than have peace. However, NOTICE I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE in that comment. Just that the world would stay much like you - idle. Well, actually, that's just being hyperbolical, I still aver that if the WHOLE world was buddhist, not much would get done. And I expect you to either twist my words around and take it as meanign something I made no reference to (much like that 'peace' card you tried playing on that one) or retort with, "well, what needs to get done?". As I said, all too predictable. Hmmm..... n0! As a matter of fact, I DID counteragrue, I showed you through the anti-skeptical arguments why YOU'RE the one not making a claim; if you say nothing can be known, and when asked if you KNOW THIS, you reply with no, then you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you. I didn't just say, "it isn't". I've already debunked your "reality is subjecive" notion Now, allow me to debunk AGAIN with the help of Epicurus (link here) Anti-skeptical Arguments 1. The "lazy argument" Epicurus says that it is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die. 2. The self-refutation argument If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him. 3. The argument from concept-formation If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses Hmmm, not only are you an idiot, but as it turns out, you say that nothing can be known, and to top it off, when I asked you if you KNOW that nothing can be known, you said, "no"... well, in that case, you're not making a claim, and I don't need to listen to you, NOBODY DOES! You're an idiot. Look, I come and say, "oh it's going to rain tomorrow", my friend turns to me and goes, "what, you serious, do you know that it's going to rain tomorrow?", then I go, "no". Why on earth would anyone pay me mind that way. If your grammer follies weren't enough for me to chide you with, you've now exposed yourself as being the worst type of debator - one who doesn't make any claims, just says stuff. Congratulations, you're mediocre! You say that nothing can be known, and we only use our sense but even we can't trust them, and only aver them to be reliable because the other six billion people on this planet share the same sense..... well, if you can't trust the sense, where do you get your knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as you claim, then you are not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating your thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses. Just read what I've pasted for the second time rather than have me fit it into this situation, if you can't see past your own follies, you're beyond help and not worthy of my time. Do you like having someone make you look this stupid? Not that it took much, though. It was actually quite facile. You really can't just partially agree with that altruism bit, it's plain and simple, humans do what is in their interest. Always. Plain and simple. If it is in your interest to help othrs, then you do so, but you are not being unselfish; you are sufficing your own interests, thus making it selfish (which is not bad, mind you). If it makes you happy to help others, then you are doing you. Sounds selfish to me. If you do somethign you don't like, it's because you fear the reprucussions (spelling) if you DON'T do it, the distres of not doing (i.e. going to school/work) or because you know it will not be productive and conducive to your interests later on in life. See a pattern here, people. Also, you go to work though you may not enjoy it because not doing so will leave you unemployed, stressed and pauper, so you avoid pain and agony, and suffering. Hedonism again. And if it doesn't pain you to lose your job, then you're attaining pleasure; hedonism again. Altruism = specious.