A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not the way to determine whether Lessans was right. It can only come from analyzing whether his observations have merit. [...]

Ole Romer's observations on the moons of Jupiter predate Lessans' observations by almost 300 years. They've been verified and confirmed over multiple generations, and his observation are consistent with the scientific theory that the eye sees by detecting light and only light.

So, pretty much by making a observation that is inconsistent with Romer and 300+ years of scientific rigor, it's pretty safe to say that it's very, very likely Lessans' observations have no merit.

The burden is entirely on Lessans to show why his ideas have merit, and he fucked that up royally. Now it's up to you. Good luck.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Ole Romer's observations on the moons of Jupiter predate Lessans' observations by almost 300 years. They've been verified and confirmed over multiple generations, and his observation are consistent with the scientific theory that the eye sees by detecting light and only light.

No one is disagreeing that the eye sees by detecting light and only light. What do you think Lessans was saying, that the eyes detect rocks?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

So, pretty much by making a observation that is inconsistent with Romer and 300+ years of scientific rigor, it's pretty safe to say that it's very, very likely Lessans' observations have no merit.

The burden is entirely on Lessans to show why his ideas have merit, and he fucked that up royally. Now it's up to you. Good luck.

He did not fuck anything up specious. In fact, I have yet to see a dog recognize his master on a computer screen. I have yet to see a dog show recognition from a picture of his master. I have yet to see a dog show recognition of his master from a cardboard replica. This is important because if light is traveling to the eye and the image is interpreted in the brain, the dog should show some sort of recognition especially if his master has been gone for a long period of time where the dog would be very excited to see him. You don't seem to think these observations make any difference. I happen to think otherwise.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is important because if light is traveling to the eye and the image is interpreted in the brain, the dog should show some sort of recognition especially if his master has been gone for a long period of time where the dog would be very excited to see him. You don't seem to think these observations make any difference. I happen to think otherwise.

This is not an observation, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. A big hint are the words "should" and "would".

Also, dogs recognize their masters and there are multiple well-designed experiments that show this using real observation, not some claims that Daddy Dum-dum pulled out of his ass.



And this has fuck all to do with the eyes.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is disagreeing that the eye sees by detecting light and only light. What do you think Lessans was saying, that the eyes detect rocks?

You do realize that if eyes detect light, that makes them a sense organ?

That directly contracts Lessans, who Used Capital Letters to tell us the eyes are not.

This also contradicts what you've said in the past, and once you re-realize that eyes detecting light and only light means we don't see in real time, you will backtrack on the idea that the eyes only detect light.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by But

This is not an observation, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. A big hint are the words "should" and "would".

Also, dogs recognize their masters and there are multiple well-designed experiments that show this using real observation, not some claims that Daddy Dum-dum pulled out of his ass.



And this has fuck all to do with the eyes.

Just last week, I came home while my son was walking the dog. Curious how the dog would react, I waited. I was standing still, uphill and downwind and the dog didn't react to my presence until he saw me.

I've mentioned in the past that my dogs react to certain visual cues which have no other sensory input, like a garage door being open, or a nonverbal command.

It's really hard to convince me that Lessans' observations have merit when they run counter to my own experience.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is disagreeing that the eye sees by detecting light and only light. What do you think Lessans was saying, that the eyes detect rocks?

Of course you have said just that, many times. Here, for example, from June 18, 2014:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You leave out the most important thing; that we see the object.

He did not fuck anything up specious. In fact, I have yet to see a dog recognize his master on a computer screen. I have yet to see a dog show recognition from a picture of his master. I have yet to see a dog show recognition of his master from a cardboard replica. This is important because if light is traveling to the eye and the image is interpreted in the brain, the dog should show some sort of recognition especially if his master has been gone for a long period of time where the dog would be very excited to see him. You don't seem to think these observations make any difference. I happen to think otherwise.

Horseshit. You’re lying. You’ve been given numerous studies showing that dogs do indeed recognize their masters from sight alone — including from photographs and videos. I myself linked you to a web site showing a dog recognizing its master on a video, you lying liar.

I recently met my friend’s new puppy for the first time. A couple of days after we met, I began opening the front door to the house and she was making a terrible racket inside, thinking I was an intruder. Then she saw me and leapt into my arms and covered me with licks. (She really likes me. )

Oh, and your idiot nonsense babble about dogs had nothing to do with the moons of Jupiter question, did it?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't be able to find anything in my version that contradicted anything that he wrote because I did not change anything other than with grammar/sentence structure and adding some examples to clarify the points HE MADE. You're all just trying to find me guilty when I'm guilty of nothing.

But peacegirl, let us think together of the things that you simply deleted and suppressed and distorted with your Corruptions - those are the base rot of your Corrupted Text.

Friends, the answer is clear and simple: reject peacegirl's Corrupted Text. Reject her blame. Do not be drawn into her bizarre and fake defense of her own Corrupted Text.

Join us and interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author in his lifetime. I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text - I will never charge you money for the Authentic Text, as peacegirl seeks to do in pursuit of lucre.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so myopic there is no discussion with you. Your rebuttals have done nothing to prove Lessans was wrong. I hope the people who think of themselves as free thinkers will think for themselves. That is what this website promotes yet they do the very opposite by purposely cutting off any new thought. Very very unfortunate!

Maybe you should stop lying, evading, and making ridiculous excuses for your own failure.

[peacegirl]

You’re all so predictable! I will not stoop to your level. You all love to hate me, but with each lie you’re making me stronger and more determined than ever.

[But]

That's typical of people suffering from delusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

This is not an observation, it is an unsubstantiated assertion. A big hint are the words "should" and "would".

Also, dogs recognize their masters and there are multiple well-designed experiments that show this using real observation, not some claims that Daddy Dum-dum pulled out of his ass.



And this has fuck all to do with the eyes.

The experiments do not trump careful observation.

Originally Posted by “specious_reasons”

Just last week, I came home while my son was walking the dog. Curious how the dog would react, I waited. I was standing still, uphill and downwind and the dog didn't react to my presence until he saw me.

I've mentioned in the past that my dogs react to certain visual cues which have no other sensory input, like a garage door being open, or a nonverbal command.

It's really hard to convince me that Lessans' observations have merit when they run counter to my own experience.

A visual cue could alert an animal. They can make certain distinctions like recognizing another 4 legged animal, but this not what Lessans was referring to.

[Florence Jellem]

Are we back in business, boys? Remember, this thread is now in its eighth great year.

Since the topic has again returned to dogs, I would like to ask peacegirl, once and for all: Why did you murder my dear little Manchester terrier, Adolf?

Bully! Murderess! Corruptrix!



#ripAdolf

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You’re all so predictable! I will not stoop to your level. You all love to hate me, but with each lie you’re making me stronger and more determined than ever.

So now you're even more determined to lie and evade?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So now you're even more determined to lie and evade?

You’re no better than anyone here who is spewing lies, but I forgive you! That does not mean I want to engage with you so please don’t try to contact me to thank me for my mercy!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You’re no better than anyone here who is spewing lies...

You mean you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean you?

I don’t live in your illusory world.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A visual cue could alert an animal. They can make certain distinctions like recognizing another 4 legged animal, but this not what Lessans was referring to.

Do you know how insane this sounds?

Animals recognize visual cues, but the eyes are not a sense organ. It's like Lessans was determined to misuse terms.

It still doesn't explain my astute observation that my dog recognized me visually without any other sensory input. He didn't hear me, smell me or see me move - I was standing still as he was being walked up the hill.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don’t live in your illusory world.

You mean the world where it's impossible for photons to magically be in two places at once or teleport instantaneously across millions of miles? You don't live in that world?

[Stephen Maturin]

Friends, peacegirl can't even described the Two-Sided Equation, the Boohog Corollary, the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem, or the Butt-Stuff Injunction in her own words.

show spoiler

peacegirl, dirty pig that she is, once neglected to do her laundry for two months. Anger-pissing in the magic elixir (Thou Shalt Not Blame), she blamed the Freethought Forum for her piggery.

On multiple occasions peacegirl has disagreed vigorously with direct quotes from her own fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt.

And, of course, peacegirl is an admitted liar, such that her making a statement is evidence that the opposite is true.

But hey, on the other hand, peacegirl has been taking public money under false pretenses for many years. That's right, you taxpaying American lurkers - YOU are financing peacegirl's lifestyle of day drinking and squabbling with strangers on the internet.

The choice is clear, folks: a lying thief, or a true steward. I know you'll choose wisely.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It still doesn't explain my astute observation that my dog recognized me visually without any other sensory input.

My dogs recognize me by sight alone as well, specious. The only viable explanation is that our dogs resent Seymour Lessans for challenging their worldview.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The experiments do not trump careful observation.

OK, let me break this down for you, since you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed and possibly drunk on top of that.

You cannot observe that something would happen. You can only have observed that something did happen. Your father did not do that. It's not an observation, it's a claim.

[Florence Jellem]

Boys, after peacegirl murdered my Adolf Flo fell into a steepening, downward spiral of darkness and despair. I took abed all day long, consuming vast quantities of whiskey and watching Fox News from sunup to sundown.

But recently I obtained a nice shelter dog. I have named him The Donald. Here he is:



The Donald has given Flo a new lease on life.

Also, The Donald can definitely recognize me by sight alone. He was tested with levers.

I swear, if peacegirl, or ISIS, lays a finger on The Donald, I’ll scratch Obama’s eyes out!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

OK, let me break this down for you, since you're obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed and possibly drunk on top of that.

You cannot observe that something would happen. You can only have observed that something did happen. Your father did not do that. It's not an observation, it's a claim.

You’re confused But. This is a claim based on accurate observations. Take it or leave it. No one is forcing you to agree with something you are positive is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

My dogs recognize me by sight alone as well, specious. The only viable explanation is that our dogs resent Seymour Lessans for challenging their worldview.

Take a video to prove that your dog recognizes you without other sensory cues. Not hard to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Friends, peacegirl can't even described the Two-Sided Equation, the Boohog Corollary, the Surreptitious Aphrodisiac Theorem, or the Butt-Stuff Injunction in her own words.

show spoiler

peacegirl, dirty pig that she is, once neglected to do her laundry for two months. Anger-pissing in the magic elixir (Thou Shalt Not Blame), she blamed the Freethought Forum for her piggery.

On multiple occasions peacegirl has disagreed vigorously with direct quotes from her own fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt.

And, of course, peacegirl is an admitted liar, such that her making a statement is evidence that the opposite is true.

But hey, on the other hand, peacegirl has been taking public money under false pretenses for many years. That's right, you taxpaying American lurkers - YOU are financing peacegirl's lifestyle of day drinking and squabbling with strangers on the internet.

The choice is clear, folks: a lying thief, or a true steward. I know you'll choose wisely.

So interesting how fabrications can grow bigger and bigger if not checked. This would be a perfect forum for psychologists to study how lies can take on a life of their own where it takes over reality