View Single Post
Old June 4th 04, 01:32 AM
Info Junkie
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a

On Mon, 31 May 2004 23:47:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Info Junkie wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 01:36:33 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Info Junkie wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:54:41 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Holger Dansk wrote:


We do not have time machines, and we are not responsible for the deed of
people who lived many years before we were born.
Not unless we still have benefit of the wealth they stole through
slavery, AND collectively, we DO!!!! That amounts to the possesion
of lost or stolen property, and ANY disparity of wealth that we have
allowed to afflict new generations of blacks, because of our ongoing
greed in NOT returning our ill-gotten gain, this is ALSO our debt!!

This is why we owe blacks complete restoration to the wealth and
position, power, and education they would have had they been white!!
Because Color WAS the distinguishing feature that identified them as
slaves for hundreds of years, deprived them of family, tribe, and
culture, and left them in this condition.

Oh my. Where should such monies for "reparations" (which is what you're speaking
of) come from:
Confiscated wealthy from all the wealthy.

So you wish the government to take monies from the wealthy (whatever "wealthy"
means) to give to blacks, not based on law, but because you believe it o be
"right". Understood.

No. You don't.

Then you're free to show where I've erred.

1. Would you include receiving monies(from) those that originally captured and
(then) sold them into slavery?

Impossible, and irrelevant.

Impossible? Aren't there things such as trade agreements?

"Irrevelent"? Hardly

"President Jerrauld Rawlins of Ghana and President Mathieu Kerekou (Bennin)
apologized for the role their ancestors played during the African slave trade,"

"We have always found it difficult to accept that the slave trade could not have
flourished without the participation of Africans. But now the issue of African
complicity had been addressed... by the descendants of those who had sent their
brothers and sisters in chains to the New World"

"Throughout its history, many African-Americans have suppressed one glaring fact
as if they wanted to purposely ignore it. That is, that African Kings and rulers
sold their ancestors into slavery."

Ivory Coast Director M'Balla, commenting about a film release on the African
role in slavery: "It focuses on the complexity of African people in selling
their brothers into slavery"...(it) doesn't dimish the role of the white
slave-traders, but shows that slavery wouldn't have happened on the scale it did
had Africans not collabroated"


Quite relevent indeed.

2. What of those whose families owned no slaves, and were in fact against
slavery? Would you "pick their pocket" for "reparations" as well?

Those who are wealthy should be relieved of it.

It would appaear you're not interested in facts Mr Walz ,but may just be jealous
of those wealthier than you, and while you may prefer a socialistic ideaology of
wealth distribution, using the "race card" as a method to justify the means to
an end is a poor one indeed.

3. What, do we "owe blacks" that are descedants of black slave owners Mr Walz?
Or are you claiming only white people were slave owners in this country.

Same as we owe EVERYONE. A decent education, job, home.

For clarification then, you beleive:

1. Descendants of black slave owners should also receive "reparations"?
2. Descendants of black slave owners should also receive "reparations" even if
they happen to be wealthy?

For that matter we also owe each child born into our society their
own residence, free and clear, simply because 500 generations of the
labor of our collective ancestors slaving for the rich have already
earned them that inheritance, and by right of equality they each
should already own and control their fair share of the entire earth!!

Where do you get "500 generations"?
It doesn't matter, moron, it's not specific, nor does it have to be.

You make the assertion, you provide the evidence.

It was an offhand number that need not be accurate, in fact it can
be longer or shorter with no change in the certain truth of my
assertion. It depends on what you call a generation, if it is 20
years, fine, and if as some say, it is 30 years, then still, fine.
Since we have a body of common ancestry that is distanced from the
present by between 10,000 and 100,000 years, it is unimportant.
And in any case, everyone *IS* related to everyone else.

Yet you wish only blacks to receive "reparations" for slavery, paid for by
citizens of a country where the majority never owned slaves, in a country that
has not existed with a Consitution that we've had for far less than 100,000, or
even 10,000 years old.

"Off-hand" is not irrelevent Mr Walz, as an assertion of "500 generations" wrt
making "reparation" payments for which you desire be paid to blacks, must have a
beginning and an end.

OTOH, If one wishes to claim, "everyone *IS* related to everyone else", then why
should we pay our relatives for injuries never incured by ourselves to

Blacks are the only ones who can help themselves.
That doesn't happen, there is no "Free Will", we are products of
our experience, and nothing else, and we cannot change what
circumstances have made us think and what we do because of it.
We can only wait for new circumstances and experiences, or others
to affect our thinking.

This may be true for animals Mr Walz,
Nope, it's true for ALL beings in the world, your trying to speak
of self-awareness, not realizing that self-awareness has nothing
whatsoever to do with "Free Will", you obviously need some college
philosophy coursework.

One that believes as you do also knows there are opposing theories that dispute
your belief.

Wrong ones, yes, and held for ulterior illegitimate motives of
greed and power.

"Wrong ones" is but your subjective opinion Mr Walz. They too may make the same
claim against your theroies, and are but just as subjective and their opinion.

but many times people change their ways
because of their experiences...some to improve themselves, some to enact
reverge, some to wallow in self-pity.
Yes, they change because of experiences, ansd without those important
lucky, formative experiences, they do NOT!! In other words, they do
NOT have "Free Will".

Now by asserting these people have obtained new experiences, they are "lucky".
Doesn't sound very "scientific", at least to use as any sort of "proof" of your
belief over opposing theories.

What would you call a happy winner of a random chance award? That's purely scientific.

I would call the winner, "a happy winner of a random chance award"

OTOH, you believe that "luck" is "purely scientific"? How does one come to a
conclusion that is "purely scientific" based on variables that are not

We do what we do because of who we
are, which is produced by our life experiences, in the precise
order they occur, and our chemical reaction to them which is
entirely determined by cause and effect. There is ONLY ONE
outcome for events at a specic place and time, and ONLY one
finally happens, regardless of how many other universes were
also produced which did NOT become this thread's future!

As previously provided to you Mr Walz (and shown below), "based on your beleief,
the "ONLY one final outcome" would be the same for all individuals, and be at
the least easily predicatible".

If there was no such thing as "free will"
Mr Walz, all individual outcomes would be predictible for each of us. throughout
No, they would merely be unary, ONLY one final outcome, which is

Yet based on your beleief, the "ONLY one final outcome" would be the same for
all individuals, and be at the least easily predicatible.

All individuals are not the same, nor the place and time nor the
order of their life experiences, nor their experiences themselves
the same, and prediction presumes advanced enough science or the
possible impossibility of prediction, which still does NOT prevent
PLACE AND TIME! Thus all outcomes are Deterministic.

Unless such items are predictible Mr Walz, it is hardly "purely scientific".
OTOH, how does one arrive at your phrase of "possible impossibility of
prediction"? Either it's possible or it's not Mr Walz, or you're claiming that
"guessing" at potential variables is somehow "purely scientific".

The notion that they must be predictable relies upon your ability
to fathom the totality of the science of causation, which neither
you nor other lower animals have.

The only thing that may now be predictible in your posts, is that you've begun
down the path of ad hominem.

No. I don't have the ability to predict all causation either.
By "you" I meant the general "you" here.

Yet you made the statment that predictibility "relies upon your ability
to fathom the totality of the science of causation, which neither you (posted to
me) nor other lower animals have.

This is not a "general" phrase Mr Walz, and implies you claim such an "ability",
as opposed to "(me) nor other lower animals have."

I may suggest since you believe you fully understand the aetiology of human
nature, you publish your works and disprove those with far more knowledge in
this field than you or I, wrt your belief on "free will".

It's no mere "belief", it is inarguable truth based on logic.
Things cannot be successfully argued to operate otherwise.

If an "inarguable truth", you'll have no problem publishing your works Mr Walz.

If we had "Free WIll" we could decide apart from any and all causes,
to think differently than we had, in the manner we'd prefer, and we'd
think we were somewhere else than we are, and we'd be there, because
we would be able to firmly retain belief in that in spite of all of
the conflicting and confounding evidence to the contrary occuring to
our senses, and we would be quite schizophrenic and lost in a fantasy

We but limit ourselves Mr Walz, to those endeavor with which we wish to aspire.
IOW, there is no reason a child can not become an astronaut, fireman, professor
of biology, etc. Some have coined the phrase, *thinking-out-of-the-box* wrt
"to think differently than we had".

Yet this is far different than believing "free will" is somehow connected to our
physical presence, nor is it logical Mr Walz, nor is it in context with your
wishing to force others to make "reparation" payments to blacks.

That IS what such a power entails, and it makes coherent living
of a lifetime impossible. It can be argued that those who do so are
lives than go out of existence out the sides of reality leaving only
the rest of us who cannot, to exist coherently, moment to moment,
trapped in our life birth to death. We will never know of those others'
existence, if they can be said to have one without a single certain
life that they cannot escape, in fact it can be maintained that such
an entity would NOT be merely ONE entity by MANY or even ANY entity!
This is why we cannot have any such thing as "Free Will", we would
immediately CEASE TO EXIST! Actual "Free Will" would make any kind of
Life altogether IMPOSSIBLE!


Everyone is
responsible by his past choices or decisions for his present condition
in life.
Nope, a hundred TIMES more decisions by OTHERS produce our mind in
our lives than those we even CALL our own, and our own and also merely
the result of cause and effect outside of us. Saying we're responsible
only says that we are who suffers, it does NOT make us able to change
ourselves on whim, without reasons that would compel us beyond our

How unfortunate all of your decisions (which you believe are not
your own apparently)
I cannot control what I am, and obviously neither can you, or someone
so pitifully unable to argue as YOU are would OTHERWISE do far better!

While you may not be able to control WHO you are, only you may control HOW you
implement your beliefs.

Meaningless. What sort of thing is that, "style"?? What is NOT my
core belief that is what I believe? Nothing! No, all is belief, and
it is not under our control. Rather it IS what controls us, and how
we ARE controlled.

I made no mention wrt "style" Mr Walz, That is but a methodology, not a belief.
That you may change your "core belief" has been shown by many others throughout
history Mr Walz. Wrt what is not under your control, (which I hope) is that
another person did not type your words in the post to which I'm responding.

While there are consequences for ones actions,
implementation of ones own beliefs that determine the extent of your "free
will". To suggest you can not is not only foolish, but self-defeating.

You're arguing for some undetectable epiphenomenal "you can't and yet
you can" sort of "Free Will", which is nonsense born only of verbal
assembly and not a logical assertion.

Not at all Mr Walz. There are those that have been told time and again that they
were paralyzed would never walk again...yet they did.

Just because you can verbalize
something doesn't mean it must be so!! You think that you possess the
"feeling" of "running your own mind", but that is only an idea that
was taught you, it is not shown, it is a belief without evidence.

It was an idea that I discovered Mr Walz...on my own. I seroiusly doubt I was
the first or only one that has done so. If you wish to wallow in self-pity or
not is a option Mr Walz. How you implement your option is your "choice" Mr
Walz. Whether you (or you believe someone did it for you) is irrelevent, since
IF the conclusion is not desirable, you have but more options to change again.

It is what the RC Church taught people so they could hold them
criminally responsible for what they THINK, when that is balderdash
on its face to imagine that someone actually controls what they THINK!

Ah, so now we're getting to the "nub" of the matter. Unless you wish to clarify,
you believe that no one may be held responsible for their actions?

All that sort of thing is done for is for terror purposes, not because
someone actually controls what they think! Can terror control people,
sure, partially, falsely, and unsuccessfully, but it can seem to work
for a time, till they slit your throat. But terror does not of itself
change thoughts in minds permanently. The assault is remembered, and
forms a bio-neurologic source of rebellion and secret plotting of

If what you claim is (horribly) true Mr Walz, then neither the blacks (as slaves
nor their descendants) nor slave owners (nor their descendants) should be held
responsible or their actions, i.e. no reparations. Understood

will dictate all of the decisions your
children will make when they are grown, and the children beyond
No, children are affected not only by MY input, but by a hundred times
MORE uncontrolled experiences in their life in the world.

Children may be "effected" by their parents input, but it does not determine HOW
they would implement their actions based on your beliefs,

You mean "affected", yes.

Which would allow them different opitons, i.e., "choices" to which they may make
differing choices than their parents.

and in the manner you
would implement your actions based on your beliefs, nor are their actions

They get more predictable the more they are moral, because moral
treatment of others earns their love, which ensures the desire to
become cooperative and retain the relationship closely and amiably.

Which allows those "they love" to control what they think even more completely.

If their experiences are "uncontrolled", they may implement their
actions far differently than others would, and no "ability to fathom the
totality of the science of causation" wrt predictiblity will change that.

Even if things in children's lives are uncontrolled, if you have
behaved morally toward them they will appreciate it, and separate
you from the group of effects that they resent and which they plot
to damage, change, or destroy.

Your proof that such an environment (uncontrolled childred become more
appreciative) has ever been scientifically tested?

In the "real world" Mr Walz, those who are or have been parents understand what
you claim is but pyscho-babble, as children, even treated them "morally", do not
understand what "morally" is or is not, and constantly "push-the-envelope" wrt
their own behavior., and must be disciplined.

How sad for you and yours, as there have been many, many others
that have decided (free will) not to share your
state of self-pity.
No, that is merely their mistaken belief that they are unable to
change because they have no "Free WIll", they were brainwashed
with such crap and have never had to examine it logically.

Whose "mistaken belief"? If you believe neither your parents nor yourself had
"free will", then both you and your parents (and subsequently your children)
were also "brainwashed", ergo you'd have no ability to "examine" what was or was
not "crap" nor think "logically".

No, you're getting confused. Life experience does not brainwash us.
It teaches us what we must learn and deal with, and how. Brainwashing
is when someone as a separate agency tries to bully us into phony
edicts of thought and behavior that actually contradict our other
much more massively persuasive life experience.

Which "separate agency" does your children listen to *over* your child-raising?
If you have life experiences that are contradictory to what some "separate
agency" is saying, you'll reject it. If you wish to listen and learn that which
you do not full understand or have an "open mind" (tolerance), you'll learn both
sides of the issue and make your own decision. If your decisions is undesirable,
it becomes another *notch* in your "life experience" to make alternate choices.

We always know inside
when we have been forced to lie by threat, to ourselves and to others,
though under said threat of torture we may act and forget it is just
a phony play we are pretending, for a time.

When one is under duress, one has no opportunity to express "free will" Mr Walz,
and the two are not comparable..

Your condition or the circumstances that you are living in
today are a direct result of your decisions in the past. You are also
responsible for your future. Not anyone else. Just you.
Sorry, we are NOT islands, divisible from the rest, we are literally
produced and created by the actions of others, and everything we are
came from outside us and beyond our control. We owe each other support
and fairness!! We are a group species, a group cultural mind.

If this were true Mr Walz, one would be a robot or a domesticated and herded
No, that is not what a robot or a cow is, those are mechanical or
organic devices that have no self-awareness, but as I have told you
AND SHOWED you with a simple thought-experiment, self-awareness has
nothing whatsoever to do with "Free WIll". Self-awareness does NOT
include some magical ability to change what you think about your
existence, even though self-awaress does think ABOUT its existence
and models its existence internally in its mind as a means of perceiving
the past!


You're a liar, a coward, a nincompoop who cannot reason logically.
Your blurting is cowardly and defensive because you are unable to
respond logically.

So much for your "free will" Mr Walz. Who is controlling your typing of ad
hominem Mr Walz?

If we could change what we thought we would go totally insane almost
immediately because we would decide to think we were elsewhere in
some life and location that we preferred far better and we would leave
this reality and perhaps leave behind a catatonic body abandoned by
any person in touch with reality. We would mentally mastrubate our
mind into insanity and total loss of reality if given whimsical
control of what we believe!! That's the prime reason we CANNOT HAVE
"Free Will", because it would make Reality itself and individual
coherent lives IMPOSSIBLE!!!

More Pyscho-babble. If one does not learn Mr Walz, one remains a child. How one
implements what has been learned determines ones future.

But how one implements anything comes from our life experience and
beliefs that come directly from them.

No argument here Mr Walz.

You are pretending that you
can separate what is experienced from how it affects beliefs, and
hence acts, and you CANNOT! Those separations are verbal ONLY, and
ONLY as a feature of sentence structure, they are NOT real, except
as speech fragments.

I have no need to "pretend" wrt things that are false Mr Walz. Things I once
believed are no longer part of my beliefs Mr Walz, as I grew and learned to put
away such childish beliefs.

In my youth, with my childish beliefs, I made childish decisions, based n the
life experiences and knowledge I had acquired at the time I acted. I have since
learned from my life experiences, and much later in life,I made far more mature
and reasoned decisions. This is not merely "verbal" as I made and acted upon,
my decisions based on my life experiences, and not how others "controlled" me.

OTOH, some have learned
to change not only what they've learned previously may be incorrect, but have
made appropriate changes in how they implement their new experieces, including
how they treat others...none of which were predictible.

Nonsense, they are as predictable as anything, FOR YOU JUST DID SO!!
This means they are caused by external experiences and how they affect
our internal workings entirely beyond our control! If this were not
so, then no transformative experiences would be possible!

If they are not repeatable Mr Walz, they're not predictible. Claiming a
predictibility, one must have a means to repeat the "experiment", including all

And experience means EITHER external OR INTERNAL, because we can be
JUST as taken somewhere we might not have tread by our own musings
and pouring over old experiences as by new ones! This is NOT any form
of "self-control", this is merely dynamic logic at work, the action
of delay and feedback in the Deterministic mechanism of our chemical
physical mind!! We do not control, we are controlled by everything

Hence the point wrt "reparations" of which you wrote is unnecessary.

While you may believe it is true for you Mr Walz,
Don't be a disingenuous ****, you dummy, you know full well that I
hold it to be true of everyone forever and always!! AND YOU KNOW

(And your ad hominem becomes more shrill - as predicted above)

You asserted that I merely BELIEVE it, or "for me alone" and that
was an insulting ad hominem, however smug and round about, and why
I lashed out at you. If you don't desire to be assailed, desist
from such gambits!

I merely noted you cited your opinion to which I disagreed Mr Walz. OTOH, you
typed in "caps" (i.e. yelling) Mr Walz, and claimed I was "a disingenuous ****,
you dummy". . This is not an assertion, but a fact that may be seen as
repeatable and read over and over by the readers in this NG.

Admit "what" Mr Walz? Areyou claiming you can not learn anymore than you already
have ("I hold it to be true of everyone forever and always!!")...or just that
you refuse to admit that what you've have learned to date may be, at least in
part, incorrect? That you believe there is no "free will" Mr Walz, may be true
for you, but is a theory that is disputed even among professionals.

Not competent ones. Those who reject it are clearly only doing so
because of their inability to reason and their fear of it as to
what it means, having been raised in a punitive blaming society
that holds people responsible for their very thoughts, which they
cannot help. The arguments of such inferiors are so specious that
it is barely believable that a someone pretending to authority could
dare even to publish them and reveal their shallow grasp of the
question. It is only because they are unaware how stupid they look
that they can dare do so at all. This evidences that others do
indeed grasp the subject far better, even if their inferiors are
unaware of this.

As I previously noted Mr Walz, let us know when your works are published and may
show all dissenters of your opinion have been shown in error.

The most well-accepted school of thought in QM is the MWI or many
worlds interpetation. It solves so many problems compared to all
other models that it simply cannot be ignored, and because of the
nature of its claims, cannot even BE refuted, but like Determinism,
it frightens the **** out of Fundy Xtians with their limited and
shame-based world-view, even if they CALL themselves physicists!
The rest of physics and physicists laughs at them both in front
of and behind their backs, because they can never win an argument.

Many a "well-accepted school of thought" in various fields have been found to
have failed over time Mr Walz. Yours will be no different.

"Environment is responsible for over half of the variance in the trait. Note
that ‘environment’ includes not only the circumstances of a person’s upbringing,
this is just its most obvious and important aspect, ‘environment’ also includes
everything that is not inheritable, all the non-genetic factors that might be
relevant, from experimental error to free will. "

Wrong! The half-and-half doctrine is between nurture and nature.
And the other "half" of cause is what? Genomic?? In other words,
YET MORE input into who you are and how you behave that you cannot
control or prevent!! Now this half and half baloney is so much pure
crap in biology, it is merely a nod to each other between psychology
and biology, dividing "turf" as it were.
Nobody actually knows what does exactly what, and they'd be better
off admitting it till they do!

Then you will be sure and show them the error of their ways when you publish
your works won't you?


If no such thing a "free will" exists Mr Walz, why is such a phrase considered
by the American Journal of Bioethics as a "trait", even part of ones
"environment"? Are you claiming they are wrong and only you are correct?

The presence of non-science and even anti-science in the bordeline
sciences is always good for a laugh. When writing in such fields,
most of what people write is mere opinion, they do not always write
science. Don't be decieved. In these much more complex human fields
in which we have the least grasp of how things occur of all fields,
some fanciful guesswork seems unavoidable, even if it may later stymie
the real science from progressing. It is better to speak and lay one's
assumptions on the table for future review, than to leave them unsaid.
Thus, people often write their unjustified belief systems into their
supposedly "scientific" efforts. Examples of this are so numerous!

Feel fre to laugh Mr Walz. Yet,as I said, many a "well-accepted school of
thought" in various fields have been found to have failed over time Mr Walz.
Yours will be no different.

What is meant BY "Free Will" in different circumstances does of course
differ. Sometimes it means no more than self-awareness, sometimes it
means no more than the ability to learn from experience, even in lower
animals where the mechanism doesn't even seem to be an aware process.

So you're citing "logic", yet you've not full and accurately defined what you're
arguing against? Hmmm.

You have to examine them to know when it is being mis-used in a shoddy
and free-form manner than ignores and denies the quite proper claim of
Philosophy alone to be its definer.

Depending on whose doing the "defining", eh? Yet you admit there are those more
qualified than you that disagree.

You were brainwashed with Rightist moronic "individuality" and
"self-reliance", so that you could justify Rightist abuses of
those less fortunate in life, because you don't even grasping that
those are nothing but fatuous MYTHS!

What is clear Mr Walz, is what you believe far exceeds what you know Mr Walz, My
upbringing ("brainwashed" to you) was quite center to left-of-center...I "grew
up" and learned the world is not so (pardon the pun) "black and white".

You fancy yourself as a Leftist, but from where I sit you are to
the Right because you are unaware of why you believe the little
things that you do that make you effectively a Rightist. The
dogma you assert is inherently Rightist, it supports no other
direction of belief, but you don't know that yet, apparently.

I have previously clarified my political-position in Usenet for those that wish
a "label".

Anyone that has read my posts Mr Walz, would hardly say I'm a "leftist".

Much of what I was taught was similar to the baloney you are
spewing Mr Walz.

And which you weren't bright enough to understand, obviously.
If you were taught it, you should use it.

When I was a child Mr Walz, I did. I've since put away such childish thoughts.

This was quite evident when you snipped my questions to you wrt "reparations" Mr
Walz, as you did not wish to deal with them as facts not "myths". Instead,
moving to fallacvies of distration rather than staying on-topic wrt

I don't distract, I attack. If you don't understand what I say ask

I did ask Mr Walz. You "snipped" them from your original reply.. Feel free to
read: Message-ID:

and your repsonse:: Message-ID:

fortunately there are
many that refuse to wallow in your type of self-pity and have raised themselves
up from whatever position they originally started...regardless of race and
without any need for "reparations".
No, those who think they did were merely lucky,

Hmmm. I thought it was based upon "upon your ability
to fathom the totality of the science of causation'?

You seem to believe that I asserted I had such a thing.
I simply reminded you that YOU do not, which you onviously
took personally and now fancy that *I* pretend to it, which
I do not.

Might I suggest you post what you mean Mr Walz, else simply impying otherwise
one may ascertain many things.

and wish to take
phony credit for it, and believe that either they did it all by
themselves, which is nonsense to anyone acquainted with cause and
effect in physics, and who doesn't try to separate it from real

Which has differing, and disputible theories., none of which are appllicable to

Everything is disputable to sufficiently ignorant stubborn and
conniving people who are unwilling to reason logically. Such an
assertion that everything is disputable might lead the fatuous
to believe that there is no Truth. Hogwash. Truth can only BE
determined by people WILLING AND CAPABLE of divining it by LOGIC!

Which doesn't refute my comments. OTOH, have you published your works yet?

To all others, the Truth is NOT, in fact, "disputable", it is
merely UNAVAILABLE to them because of their ignorance and willful
intellectual misbehavior!!

Truth is truth Mr Walz. How such information is disseminated and interpreted
leads invariably to 'differing, and disputible theories., none of which are
appllicable to reparations.' That you may believe your is better than other
theories has not been proven by the works that you've had published for further

This allows them an excuse to keep their ill-gotten wealth
and allows them to think they can justify their abuses of those
less fortunate.

So even those blacks that ae wealthy was accomplished by "ill-gotten" means and
not talent, and should have their wealth "confiscated" beacuse they only use
their wealth so "they can justify their abuses of those less fortunate"?

Absolutely. WHOEVER benefits by the degradation of another, is at
fault, and must be penalized till they do NOT benefit inordinately
over others.

Now how could one possibly "benefit(s) by the degradation of another" if, as you
claimed, "We do not control, we are controlled by everything else!!". Ego, no
one is responsible for their wactions Mr Walz. twist it anyway you wish, but
that is what you've been saying all along.

It's mostly the greedy self-indulgent excuses of
the thief and bandit that motivates the Rightist to justify their
unfairly gotten wealth by pretending that "Free Will" exists, when
every logical argument trashes that Myth totally!

If "every logical argument" shows there is no such thing as "free will" Mr Walz,

It can't. It is unable.

Then no reparations need be made Mr Walz, as no one is repsonsible for their
actions, nor could they have possibly (based on your argument) benefit from "the
degradation of another".