A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that ruins it for today.

As always, you'll leap at any excuse to evade inconvenient questions. Daddy would be so proud.

[peacegirl]

[quote=But;1268105]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is my compilation which is right on the front cover. I'm not hiding anything, nor am I taking any credit. It's so much like his other versions (except for a few added changes that do not change the concept), that there was nothing to copyright..

It says "compiled and edited" when it should say "heavily redacted". You removed and added complete passages without telling the reader. No one who reads the book knows what are your words and what are his. You didn't add comments or footnotes, you completely changed the text. You're misrepresenting the author.

If I do anymore revisions, I will put a star in front of the excerpts that are mine. I did not remove whole passages But. You're wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans seems to like percentages as a way of making his opinions appear more like facts. In partcular the 98% figure is his way of saying, 'almost everyone', or 'virtually all'. It crops up many times in his works:

But I only found two occurrences of 99%:

There is a section about interest rates that mention 4%, (10%, 15, 20, 25, 30%).

In other passages about taxes and finances I also found occurrences of 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 19%, 20%, 25%, 32%, 36%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%.

There are also lots of instances of 100% which is just a Lessans synonym for 'certain'.

Other than his exact calculations in the economic chapter, it can easily be seen that 98% was used generically. This has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of these principles. You're all just wasting more time. Will there ever come a day that you stop deflecting and actually determine if his actual claims hold weight?

[Spacemonkey]

Will there ever come a day when Peacegirl stops lying and evading questions?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Will there ever come a day that you stop deflecting and actually determine if his actual claims hold weight?

That ship has sailed. Lessans claims have been weighed and none of them hold any weight. So all that is left is for Peacegirl to finally admit that she and Lessans are wrong.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was making the point that everyone will be able to find love. I think it got lost in the translation.

So, in what language did Lessans' write his books and who did the translating?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he didn't. It didn't lend itself to this kind of testing.

So, you have been lying all along about how his claims just need to be tested by scientists to be confirmed.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that he didn't make a truth claim. He used the term 98% to mean "a lot".

You have also said that there is "some truth" to it. I am simply asking what the factual basis of that truth is. What data support this claim?

I can accept your bare assertion that he used the term "98%" to mean "a lot" rather than what he actually wrote. That does not trouble me. What is the factual basis of the claim that "a lot" of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love? What data support that claim?

I believe if he had to do it all over again, he would not have made this comment about homosexuality because he would have realized that people would go after him for this. He wasn't perfect Chuck. He was a human being who sometimes made mistakes. You are using this to discredit his discoveries by saying he could have been wrong about them as well. He wasn't.

peacegirl, I haven't even brought up other claims or said that he must be perfect or that he wasn't a human being - you have introduced all of this.

I am simply curious about the factual basis for the claim that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." What data support this claim?

peacegirl, how can this claim be evaluated if there can be no inquiry into its factual basis or the data that support it? You find truth value in it - what is the factual basis for that finding? What data support it?

[Angakuk]

For peacegirl's edification, this is what an "off the cuff statement" actually looks like.

[Stephen Maturin]

peacegirl, do you disagree with peacegirl when she says that the Messiah was perfect?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You have also said that there is "some truth" to it. I am simply asking what the factual basis of that truth is. What data support this claim?

I can accept your bare assertion that he used the term "98%" to mean "a lot" rather than what he actually wrote. That does not trouble me. What is the factual basis of the claim that "a lot" of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love? What data support that claim?

He had already said there could be a genetic predisposition, so that was already a given. He mentioned some (not all) reasons why a person may choose someone of the same sex due to environmental factors. He was not standing in judgment.

I believe if he had to do it all over again, he would not have made this comment about homosexuality because he would have realized that people would go after him for this. He wasn't perfect Chuck. He was a human being who sometimes made mistakes. You are using this to discredit his discoveries by saying he could have been wrong about them as well. He wasn't.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, I haven't even brought up other claims or said that he must be perfect or that he wasn't a human being - you have introduced all of this.

But you are, and you know it. You are trying to find flaws in his writing in order to dismiss his discoveries.

Originally Posted by Chuck

I am simply curious about the factual basis for the claim that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." What data support this claim?

I already told you that the 98% he was referring to may have become homosexual due to environmental influences in order to find love, which is our birthright. He did not include the people who are hardwired to desire the same sex. Let it go Chuck. This has nothing to do with the validity of his discoveries.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, how can this claim be evaluated if there can be no inquiry into its factual basis or the data that support it? You find truth value in it - what is the factual basis for that finding? What data support it?

This has gotten so completely off the beaten track, I have no desire to continue this aspect of the conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, in what language did Lessans' write his books and who did the translating?

So, you have been lying all along about how his claims just need to be tested by scientists to be confirmed.

Of course it needs to be confirmed in order for us to apply this knowledge, but it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method where someone states a hypothesis and then collects data. Lessans did not start out with a hypothesis. He was an astute observer and saw patterns in human behavior that allowed him to perceive this law, but it could not be observed directly. Yet it cannot be denied that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This IS an invariable law. He couldn't collect data to prove that we move in this direction, but IT IS still a factual observation. There are no exceptions, which is why we can call it a law of nature. Although this law is descriptive, not prescriptive, it's usefulness can be clearly seen as we apply the principles that follow from this law.

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying
an invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be
made thousands of years ago and verified in the 20th century?
Would you like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to
do with religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be
rewarded with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from
all evil? If you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic
transition to a new way of life which must come about the moment
this discovery is thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not
judge what you are about to read in terms of your present
knowledge but do everything in your power to understand what is
written by following the mathematical relations implicitly expressed
throughout. Please remember that any truth revealed in a
mathematical manner does not require your approval for its
validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for
recognition and development. And now my friends, if you care to
come along, let us embark...the hour is getting late.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[davidm]

peacegirl, for five and a half years you've been copy-pasting your father's nonsense babble (or YOUR nonsense babble -- who even knows if he wrote the above, or you wrote it, or a team of monkeys hammering away randomly on keyboards wrote it?). And in all that time all we do is laugh at it and point out why it's wrong. He had no discoveries.

But recently we did learn that he had some wit and style as a roughish sort of writer in the vein of Miller or Bukowski; and all that good stuff you took out. You are an idiot.

Given that he had no discoveries and you keep copy-pasting the same bullshit and we keep laughing at it and showing why it's wrong, what do you hope to accomplish here at this very late date? Are you so deluded as to think anyone here is going to change his or her mind about this nonsense if you copy-paste it just one more time?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that the 98% he was referring to may have become homosexual due to environmental influences in order to find love, which is our birthright.

Ok - peacegirl, what is the factual basis for this claim? What data support it?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it needs to be confirmed in order for us to apply this knowledge, but it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method where someone states a hypothesis and then collects data.

Ah, okay. So science cannot confirm any of Lessans' discoveries, even though you've been claiming for over five years that it can.

How does that affect Lessans' own ideas about implementing his discoveries? He outlined1 a clear step-by-step process: (1) science verifies the discoveries, particularly the one relating to free will, blame and the two-sided equation; (2) the discoveries are taught in schools; (3) eventually enough people will be convinced of the discoveries' veracity that relatively large-scale real world implementation can start; (4) when people once skeptical see how well the principles work, they'll join in as well. Since you've acknowledged that Step 1 isn't possible, where does that leave us?

1 Of course, I have nothing to go on but the Corrupted Text. For purposes of this post I'm assuming that the Corrupted Text accurately states Lessans' views. Based on recent developments in this thread I realize the assumption may not be accurate.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

a team of monkeys hammering away randomly on keyboards

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Ah, okay. So science cannot confirm any of Lessans' discoveries, even though you've been claiming for over five years that it can.[/qutoe]

I didn't say that Maturin. I said that they confirm his discoveries using the scientific method. There are other ways to test his discoveries.

How does that affect Lessans' own ideas about implementing his discoveries? He outlined1 a clear step-by-step process: (1) science verifies the discoveries, particularly the one relating to free will, blame and the two-sided equation; (2) the discoveries are taught in schools; (3) eventually enough people will be convinced of the discoveries' veracity that relatively large-scale real world implementation can start; (4) when people once skeptical see how well the principles work, they'll join in as well. Since you've acknowledged that Step 1 isn't possible, where does that leave us?

1 Of course, I have nothing to go on but the Corrupted Text. For purposes of this post I'm assuming that the Corrupted Text accurately states Lessans' views. Based on recent developments in this thread I realize the assumption may not be accurate.

That's the first fair question you've had in a long time. Science can test this using a smaller sample size or simulation. It would be like someone building a small bridge to verify that the formula is accurate. They would then be able to build bridges on a larger scale with confidence. Believe me, it can be done, but people are so skeptical I can't even get any real traction. Can you believe in all this time no one has helped to spread word of this thread? I realize that this whole thing sounds impossible coming from the vantage point of the world we're living. But when this discovery finally gets confirmed valid and sound, and the transition gets started, it will change every aspect of our lives for the better. It IS the coming of the Golden Age, which was predicted in the Bible, although this coming will not be through supernatural means. Trust me, my version of the text is not corrupt, although I could have been more clear as to which excerpts were mine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, for five and a half years you've been copy-pasting your father's nonsense babble (or YOUR nonsense babble -- who even knows if he wrote the above, or you wrote it, or a team of monkeys hammering away randomly on keyboards wrote it?). And in all that time all we do is laugh at it and point out why it's wrong. He had no discoveries.

But recently we did learn that he had some wit and style as a roughish sort of writer in the vein of Miller or Bukowski; and all that good stuff you took out. You are an idiot.

Given that he had no discoveries and you keep copy-pasting the same bullshit and we keep laughing at it and showing why it's wrong, what do you hope to accomplish here at this very late date? Are you so deluded as to think anyone here is going to change his or her mind about this nonsense if you copy-paste it just one more time?

You are a complete idiot. Your posts tell me that you're more interested in satire than the purpose behind his words. You're not going to stop this new world from coming into existence if that's what you think.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok - peacegirl, what is the factual basis for this claim? What data support it?

It's not necessary to prove Chuck. There are environmental reasons (not just genetic) as to why people may turn to their own gender for love. Let's leave it at that, okay?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a complete idiot.

Is that really the best you can do?

You always save your most inventive insults for Maturin, which gives him a trove of choices for possible future user titles. It's like he has an embarrassment of riches from you, whereas you only give me the dregs

[Stephen Maturin]

What can I say? I inspire people to dizzying heights of anger and vitriol. Once they're done raging at me, there isn't much left for anyone else.

It's a gift.

[davidm]

I mean, just look at the potential user titles you gave Maturin in the post of yours to which he just linked upthread:

1. I am the meanest, full of crap liar that peacegirl has ever talked to.

2. What’s my fuckin problem?

3. I can’t stand it, can I?

4. People will look at me as a nutcase, which I am.

5. I really need help.

And all that in just one post!

I’m starting to think you have a crush on Maturin.

[Angakuk]

Who doesn't?

[ChuckF]

I understand that 98% of homo-sexuals have a crush on Maturin for non-inherited, non-glandular reasons.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it needs to be confirmed in order for us to apply this knowledge, but it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method...

Originally Posted by Lessan (maybe)

Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that Maturin. I said that they confirm his discoveries using the scientific method. There are other ways to test his discoveries.

Science can test this using a smaller sample size or simulation.

So which is it? Is science capable of confirming Lessans' "discoveries" or isn't it? Lessans' clearly expects that science (a term for which he appears to have yet another idiosyncratic definition) will confirm them.

You appear to be all over the place on this question. Yes, science can confirm his discoveries but not by using the scientific method. But that is just what scientists do. They use the scientific method. If there is some other method in use, then those using it (like Lessans) are not doing science. There must be something else going on.