#29026  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:18 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And what difference does it make to you what I believe?

You have been preaching your beliefs for 1161 pages, that is all you have been preaching, so of course it makes a differense.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #29027  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:25 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
In short, how do you know what it is like to be a dog?

That statement could be a straight line for a lot of very uncomplementary comments.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #29028  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm sorry if it sounds arrogant to you, but what would you say if he turned out to be right? Would you correct your mistake that he was arrogant?
Even if he did somehow turn out to be right, that doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly arrogant to believe that one uneducated guy who did no experiments whatsoever somehow managed to discover that literally hundreds of years of carefully-conducted studies were all wrong, and that virtually all of modern science is based on a completely mistaken understanding of the way that the world works.

Arrogant people occasionally turn out to be right. That doesn't make them any less arrogant.
But he wasn't arrogant. He didn't have an arrogant bone in his body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
But, as the saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far, the only "evidence" we have is yours and Lessans' say-so.
No it is not just his say so, it is the reasons behind why he says what he says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
That's hardly compelling. Especially when literally every bit of relevant evidence we have flatly contradicts Lessans' claims.
Maybe it appears that way, but you haven't taken him seriously, so there would be no way for you to know whether he was right or not.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29029  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:04 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You are extremely biased against modern medicine, higher education, and science, why is your bias okay while mine is a problem?
I'm not biased against modern medicine, higher education, and science.
Your frequent statements tell a different story. Are you lying right now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You talk about higher education as if Lessans' education wasn't a quality one because he didn't sit in a classroom.
No, I don't. You can't show me one statement of mine that remotely implies that. I am a huge supporter of autodidactism.

Unlike Lessans, I don't think my self-directed education is superior to other people's formal education, and I don't hold academics in contempt.
Self-directed education can be very good and many times is as good as a formal education, that is usually very focused. The problem with self-directed education is that it can become a random sampeling that achieves no in-depth knowledge, and this is only a problem if the line of inquiry is abandon before any real learning takes place. Of course a small sampeling may be enough to know that there is no real interest. There is a problem when self-education is claimed to be superior to a formal education when the details of that self-education are not in evidence, either as a resume or in the statements of that individual. Lessans claimed a superior education, and then demonstrated his ignorance of the subjects he claimed expertice in, by his writings.
Do me a favor. Would you pleasssssseeeeeeee tone it down? Obviously it depends on the type and quality of the education. You obviously didn't get one on etiquette.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-11-2013 at 12:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29030  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:09 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), ChristinaM (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29031  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:11 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Lessans claimed a superior education, and then demonstrated his ignorance of the subjects he claimed expertice in, by his writings.
Do me a favor. Would you pleasssssseeeeeeee shut up?
.

No.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), Spacemonkey (07-11-2013)
  #29032  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:13 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Arrogant people occasionally turn out to be right. That doesn't make them any less arrogant.
But he wasn't arrogant. He didn't have an arrogant bone in his body.

He must have put all his arrogance in the book.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29033  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:15 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My father did not talk about a personal God and neither is this guy.
Marshall is a Christian, dumbass.
You're such a jerk Maturin. I'm writing this for others, not you. He is not talking about religion here. He is trying to be objective in his analysis as to whether complex life came about by design or by a long chain of mutations, and he has a pretty good case for ID.

Despite being a devout Christian myself, my reading of Genesis didn’t create an inherent theological problem with the idea of some kind of evolution taking place. Frankly I hadn’t looked that deeply into the question up to that point, but I didn’t necessarily think that Darwinism was fundamentally incompatible with Genesis chapter 1 either. I was open to the evidence, wherever it might lead.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

'Intelligent Design' is a religious concept, any case for ID is a case for religion.
I am not religious. I believe that this universe is not here by chance and that there is a governing intelligence behind all that we see, so how do you reconcile that?
If you believe in a creator deity you have a religious belief.
My belief is not in a Being or a deity LadyShea. And what difference does it make to you what I believe?
Offer your definition of "governing intelligence" then, because you are using those words idiosyncratically.

I don't care what you believe, you are the one who posted a proof of "God" as support for your own viewpoints. Why bring it up if it's not a topic you wish to discuss?
I already gave my evidence of God, and it's in the book. I know you can't stand any mention of God, because to you it's like talking about Santa Claus.
LOL, you don't know anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
This discussion on chance brings forcibly to the attention of the
reader the fact that this world did not come about by chance. The
purpose of this book is to prove undeniably that there is design to the
universe. By delivering mankind from evil, the last vestige of doubt
is removed. Through our deliverance, God is revealed to us; but the
evil is not removed to prove that God is not a figment of the
imagination, but only because it is evil. He becomes an
epiphenomenon of this tremendous fire that will be built to burn away
the evil, and the light that is shed reveals His presence as the cause of
the evil that He is now removing through these discoveries which He
also caused; and no person alive will be able to dispute these
undeniable facts.
That describes a deity or being. I don't care what you believe, but you should be honest about it, IMO.
No it doesn't. He uses the term God metaphorically. It is the fact that these laws are able to remove evil that proves there is an intelligence (an organizing principle, not a physical being) that governs our universe. I'm not going to defend this paragraph, so please don't give me a rebuttal.

Soon it will dawn on you, as you fully understand these relations,
that consciousness is the eternal window of God through which we, all
mankind, look out upon this magnificent universe in all its glory and
mathematical harmony. It should be further obvious that God can
have absolutely no recognition for His existence and achievements
unless through the consciousness of man who is an eternal attribute
of God Himself. Once it is fully realized that we are the conscious
expression of God who exists eternally because there is no such thing
as the past or future, only the present which is eternal, we will become
completely conscious of our own eternal life, otherwise, we will be
eternal unconsciously.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29034  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:23 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
I am talking directly to thedoc. I am not talking behind his back. I have reached my limit of tolerance with this guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't go around gossiping about people I don't know. I'm sure you wouldn't like people doing that to you, especially if you were being misrepresented. I know, you will say you could care less. You put up a big front to show how strong you are, but the truth is it is easy to hurt people whether in real life or online. Why spread this venom if you don't have to?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29035  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:28 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Gossiping? Behind their back? They have published their views for public consumption on purpose, I am the public, and I can state my opinion on that published material. There is no "behind their back" involved. You are publishing Lessans views the same way, he might be called a crackpot and a nutter if anyone reads it....that's the risk you take when you offer ideas to the general public.

Do you agree with Mike Adams AIDS Denialism or 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you find these ideas the work of a rational person?

Last edited by LadyShea; 07-11-2013 at 01:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29036  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:33 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't like a lot of things that are said on the internet, but I don't go around bad mouthing people, or making sweeping statements about their general state of mind.
Lying hypocrite. You have badmouthed me and others and made plenty of sweeping statements about my general state of mind as well as the general thinking of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Is your new word "nutter" now?
Not new, no. I've used it for years
I don't call people I don't know "crazies." I am in a discussion with this group, and I've been the underdog in here for what feels like forever. I have not said things behind anyone's back LadyShea. Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation. It's also plain old gossip. Why would you stoop so low as to talk about these people in such a way? You aren't disagreeing with something they said, you are badmouthing them as individuals. You are calling them names, demeaning them, making them less than human. Calling someone crazy is not nice, period. I don't mean to preach at you, but I just wonder why you do this.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-11-2013 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29037  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:38 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
I am talking directly to thedoc. I am not talking behind his back. I don't go around gossiping about people I don't know.

Apparently it's OK to bad-mouth a person 'in front of their back' but it's not OK to bad-mouth them 'behind their back'.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29038  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:44 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Gossiping? Behind their back? They have published their views for public consumption on purpose, I am the public, and I can state my opinion on that published material. There is no "behind their back" involved. You are publishing Lessans views the same way, he wmight be called a crackpot and a nutter if anyone reads it....that's the risk you take when you offer ideas to the general public.

Do you agree with Mike Adams AIDS Denialism or 9/11 conspiracy theories? Do you find these ideas the work of a rational person?
He is a very rational person which makes me wonder why he thinks this way, but I certainly wouldn't call him names. I'm not trying to be morally superior here, so please don't think that. I also have to catch myself at times before I say something I'll regret, but I've gotten a lot better.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-11-2013 at 12:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29039  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:44 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
:laugh:

You sure about that, pop tart?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), LadyShea (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29040  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:46 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
I am talking directly to thedoc. I am not talking behind his back. I don't go around gossiping about people I don't know.

Apparently it's OK to bad-mouth a person 'in front of their back' but it's not OK to bad-mouth them 'behind their back'.
It's better to tell someone directly how you feel than to say things behind their back. One is gossip, one isn't.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29041  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:50 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
:laugh:

You sure about that, pop tart?
"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong).

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29042  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:51 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Today my grandchildren were here for a few hours and the 3 year old grandaughter took a nap on the couch, I sat in a recliner and when she woke up she came over and lay down on top of me for awhile. We just lay there and talked about anything she happened to think of.

Peacegirl, take a break, invite your grandchildren to come over and just hold them and talk about whatever they want to talk about. It will seriously relieve a lot of stress and give you a better perpective on he world. You're not going to change the world or save the world from itself, but you can be a good grandmother if you just let go a little.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #29043  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:57 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Did nothing but lick toilet paper
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMDCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
:laugh:

You sure about that, pop tart?
"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong).

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
In other words, you pulled the defamation charge out of your ass. If you'd read a bit further, you'd know that there's much more to a defamation claim than "saying nasty things." You're a moron in addition to being a liar and a thief.

ETA: One of :ff:'s regulars devised this handy dandy list of factors for determining whether a statement qualifies as legal reasoning or made-up bullshit. Testing your future law-related claims against those factors (at least the first 8) in advance might serve you well.

Let's run through the factors as they pertain to your statement about defamation. By way of refresher, your statement is "Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation." So then, the analysis looks like this:

Quote:
1. Did you just make it up? If so, it is probably shit you made up.
Yes, you just made up your claim about "saying nasty things" qualifying as defamation. Accordingly, it's probably shit you made up.

Quote:
2. Do you actually make reference to the law? If so, it might be legal reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.
No, the statement makes no actual references to the law. Hence, it's probably shit you made up.

Quote:
3. Did you look up the actual law? If so, it might be legal reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.
No, you did not look up any actual law. Thus, made-up.

Quote:
4. Did you actually read what the law says? If so, it might be legal reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.
No, you clearly didn't read what the law actually says. Therefore, it's probably shit you made up.

Quote:
5. Did you actually understand what the law says? If so, it might be legal reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.
Not applicable, since you never looked up or read the governing law in the first place.

Quote:
6. Did you find (and cite!) legal authority to support your position? If so, it might be legal reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.
Nope, no citation to legal authority whatsoever. Ergo, shit you made up.

Quote:
7. Did you have to disregard contrary authorities to find a single bit of law to support a position? If so, it is probably shit you made up.
Not applicable, since you didn't look up or review any legal authority at all.

Quote:
8. Did you have to refer to weird and distant non-legal sources that are not binding on any element of the judiciary? If so, it is probably shit you made up.
Yes, that describes perfectly the Nolo.com article you cited in a post hoc effort to justify your false statement.

Quote:
9. Does it end a birther court victory? If so, it is probably shit you made up.
This isn't a birfer case, of course, but substitute "Does it end in a money judgment against LadyShea in favor of Harris and Ranger Mike" and the answer is a resounding yes. Thus, the statement is probably shit you made up.

__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson

Last edited by Stephen Maturin; 07-11-2013 at 02:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), Dragar (07-11-2013), LadyShea (07-11-2013), Pan Narrans (07-11-2013), The Man (02-03-2017)
  #29044  
Old 07-11-2013, 12:57 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
I am talking directly to thedoc. I am not talking behind his back. I don't go around gossiping about people I don't know.

Apparently it's OK to bad-mouth a person 'in front of their back' but it's not OK to bad-mouth them 'behind their back'.
What I would like to know is if we can see someone in front of his back why can we see that same person behind his back?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29045  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:00 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are looking more and more like a total idiot every time you post.
You never badmouth people on the Internet, even when you don't like what they say!
I am talking directly to thedoc. I am not talking behind his back. I don't go around gossiping about people I don't know.

Apparently it's OK to bad-mouth a person 'in front of their back' but it's not OK to bad-mouth them 'behind their back'.
What I would like to know is if we can see someone in front of his back why can we see that same person behind his back?
Because it's not nice.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29046  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:01 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
:laugh:

You sure about that, pop tart?
"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong).

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
In other words, you pulled the defamation charge out of your ass. If you'd read a bit further, you'd know that there's much more to a defamation claim than "saying nasty things." You're a moron in addition to being a liar and a thief.
And you're a jerk, a bitch, and a grump. :D
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), Stephen Maturin (07-11-2013)
  #29047  
Old 07-11-2013, 01:55 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
No, it isn't. Did you read your own link?

Quote:
3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
They are public figures who made public statements and it is well within my rights to form and express an opinion about them based on their publicly stated views.

Sam Harris is a proponent of torture, he published an article about why he supports torture. That makes him an asshole in my opinion.

Mike Adams exploits celebrity illness and death to benefit himself, and he advocates a lot of conspiracy theories. This is all done publicly on purpose. I think that makes him a crank.

I've not made up or spread lies about them, nor have I "gossiped" about them. No defamation at all.

Last edited by LadyShea; 07-11-2013 at 02:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29048  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:16 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And you're a jerk, a bitch, and a grump. :D
So your new direction for this thread consists of insulting people in between linking to other crackpots while trying to show that your father was not a crackpot?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013), Dragar (07-11-2013), The Lone Ranger (07-11-2013)
  #29049  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:22 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Saying nasty things about Sam Harris and Mike Adams, as well as others, just because you don't agree with them is defamation.
No, it isn't. Did you read your own link?

Quote:
3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

Defamation Law Made Simple | Nolo.com
They are public figures who made public statements and it is well within my rights to form and express an opinion about them based on their publicly stated views.

Sam Harris is a proponent of torture, he published an article about why he supports torture. That makes him an asshole in my opinion.

Mike Adams exploits celebrity illness and death to benefit himself, and he advocates a lot of conspiracy theories. This is all done publicly on purpose. I think that makes him a crank.

I've not made up or spread lies about them, nor have I "gossiped" about them. No defamation at all.
You can justify anything you want LadyShea. This is not about legalities either. In my opinion you misconstrue people's motives, and you rush to judgment. But who am I to tell you what to do? If it gives you satisfaction to name call and act all innocent while you're doing it, carry on...
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
  #29050  
Old 07-11-2013, 05:23 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And you're a jerk, a bitch, and a grump. :D
So your new direction for this thread consists of insulting people in between linking to other crackpots while trying to show that your father was not a crackpot?
This guy that I linked people to is not a crackpot.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-11-2013)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (0 members and 19 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 4.53486 seconds with 15 queries