#51501  
Old 04-14-2018, 04:58 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

It is pretty satisfying - truth.
Reply With Quote
  #51502  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:04 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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Dogs may recognize aggression from another dog. Dogs can also be trained to do understand commands; they may even learn associations between a number of words and objects.
And somehow, this helps proves that the eyes are not a sense organ?
Not at all. Dogs can get cues based on shape and movement, but this is not what Lessans was talking about. Dogs SHOULD be able to recognize people they know and love by sight alone if the light is traveling to their brains where that light gets interpreted as an image), but they can't do this without other cues. Why is that? It's amazing how you ignore hundreds of observations that dog's use their sense of smell and hearing to identify, not sight, in favor of studies that are unreliable at best, just like you ignore the reports made by parents (who say their child regressed after vaccination) in favor of studies that are unreliable at best.
__________________
"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; 04-14-2018 at 05:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51503  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:05 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 ChuckF View Post
It is pretty satisfying - truth.
I know; you wouldn't do it otherwise.
__________________
"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
  #51504  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:05 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dogs SHOULD be able to recognize people they know and love by sight alone if the light is traveling to their brains where that light gets interpreted as an image), but they can't do this without other cues.
:lol: yep, every time
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-14-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51505  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:45 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dogs SHOULD be able to recognize people they know and love by sight alone ...
They can. They can even recognize the faces of their loved ones in photographs and on video, as has been shown to you.

Quote:
...if the light is traveling to their brains ...
Light doesn't travel to the brains of any animals. Cow.

Quote:
... but they can't do this without other cues.
They can.

Quote:
Why is that?
It isn't.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-14-2018), Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-14-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51506  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:51 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dogs SHOULD be able to recognize people they know and love by sight alone if the light is traveling to their brains where that light gets interpreted as an image), but they can't do this without other cues.
So why do they react differently to pictures of people they know as opposed to strangers? Why did they pick a photo of their handler 88% of the time?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51507  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:51 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 Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Friends, lurkers and newcomers, peacegirl is lying to you again. She is no more capable of leaving ChuckF's "A revolution in thought" thread than she is of abandoning her reliance on stolen taxpayer funds.
:bowing:
Don't worry, the day is coming
:nope:

Everyone can see what's going on here. You want what you can't have, namely my germinal substance. As long as I'm here, you're here. :yup:

peacegirl to Maturin:

You know it's the other way around. As long as I'm here, you're here. :wink:

__________________
"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
  #51508  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:59 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dogs SHOULD be able to recognize people they know and love by sight alone if the light is traveling to their brains where that light gets interpreted as an image), but they can't do this without other cues.
So why do they react differently to pictures of people they know as opposed to strangers? Why did they pick a photo of their handler 88% of the time?
Why can't this be done by observation (which is much more accurate) than an experiment that trains a dog to get a reward? This may not be true recognition but rather an ability to see differences in the light and dark that would allow the dog to choose the right picture to get the reward. It would be easy enough to test this in your own home. Just like in the video I posted where the dog didn't see his master for 2 years (and was depressed because he missed him), but could not recognize him until he got a whiff of him, try this yourself. Let someone show two pictures to a dog (one of his master and one of a stranger) and see if there is any show of recognition like a wag of a tail or jumping up and down, or even trying to lick the picture. Anyone who has a dog can videotape this. I have never seen a dog get excited over seeing a picture of his master in all my years growing up with dogs.
__________________
"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
  #51509  
Old 04-14-2018, 06:32 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

:lol: yeah, you didn't even read the abstracts did you? Who here is shocked? Show of hands!

Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris - ScienceDirect
Quote:
In the present study, we developed a new behavioural test, to characterize selective attention towards humans. In the task, the dogs were exposed to the owner and an unfamiliar person, repeatedly entering the experimental room and leaving through different doors; at the end of the sequence the dogs were allowed to approach the doors. Attention was measured as the average length of gaze bouts and as the overall duration of visual orientation towards the different targets. Dogs gave preferential attention to the owner, who received longer gaze bouts and greater overall attention than the stranger. The preference was confirmed by the significant proportion of dogs that directed attention to the owner’s door at the end of the task. A modified version of the task was employed to measure dogs’ attention when the person’s head was not visible. This condition caused a decrease in attention parameters towards the owner.
How dogs scan familiar and inverted faces: an eye movement study | SpringerLink
Quote:
In this study, facial inversion effect (deficits in face processing when the image is turned upside down) and responses to personal familiarity were tested using eye movement tracking. A total of 23 pet dogs and eight kennel dogs were compared to establish the effects of life experiences on their scanning behavior. All dogs preferred conspecific faces and showed great interest in the eye area, suggesting that they perceived images representing faces. Dogs fixated at the upright faces as long as the inverted faces, but the eye area of upright faces gathered longer total duration and greater relative fixation duration than the eye area of inverted stimuli, regardless of the species (dog or human) shown in the image. Personally, familiar faces and eyes attracted more fixations than the strange ones, suggesting that dogs are likely to recognize conspecific and human faces in photographs. The results imply that face scanning in dogs is guided not only by the physical properties of images, but also by semantic factors.
Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris) - ScienceDirect
Quote:
There is also suggestive evidence that dogs can identify their owner or other familiar human individuals by using visual information from the face. However, most studies have used only dogs’ looking behavior to examine their visual processing of human faces and it has been demonstrated only that dogs can differentiate between familiar and unknown human faces. Here, we examined the dog's ability to discriminate the faces of two familiar persons by active choice (approach and touch). Furthermore, in successive stages of the experiment we investigated how well dogs discriminate humans in different representations by systematically reducing the informational richness and the quality of the stimuli. We found a huge inter-individual and inter-stage variance in performance, indicating differences across dogs in their learning ability as well as their selection of discriminative cues. On a group level, the performance of dogs significantly decreased when they were presented with pictures of human heads after having learned to discriminate the real heads, and when – after relearning – confronted with the same pictures showing only the inner parts of the heads. However, as two dogs quickly mastered all stages, we conclude that dogs are in principle able to discriminate people on the basis of visual information from their faces and by making active choices.
https://link.springer.com/article/10...071-017-1108-4
Quote:
Experiment 1 of this study investigated whether dogs can recognise humans using visual information from the face/head region, and whether this also occurs in conditions of suboptimal visibility of the face. Dogs were presented with their owner’s and a stranger’s heads, protruding through openings of an apparatus in opposite parts of the experimental setting. Presentations occurred in conditions of either optimal or suboptimal visibility; the latter featured non-frontal orientation, uneven illumination and invisibility of outer contours of the heads. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. This occurred only in the optimal condition. With a similar paradigm, Experiment 2 investigated which of the alterations in visibility that characterised the suboptimal condition accounted for dogs’ inability to recognise owners. Dogs approached their owners more frequently than predicted by chance if outer head contours were visible, but not if heads were either frontally oriented or evenly illuminated. Moreover, male dogs were slightly better at recognition than females. These findings represent the first clear demonstration that dogs can recognise human faces and that outer face elements are crucial for such a task, complementing previous research on human face processing in dogs.
Science is done. Observations are in. Dogs and humans see with eyes. :shocker:

Bizarrely, this fact doesn't seem to be at the core of electromagnetism.

Last edited by ChuckF; 04-14-2018 at 06:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-14-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-14-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51510  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:16 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 ChuckF View Post
:lol: yeah, you didn't even read the abstracts did you? Who here is shocked? Show of hands!

Selective attention to humans in companion dogs, Canis familiaris - ScienceDirect
Quote:
In the present study, we developed a new behavioural test, to characterize selective attention towards humans. In the task, the dogs were exposed to the owner and an unfamiliar person, repeatedly entering the experimental room and leaving through different doors; at the end of the sequence the dogs were allowed to approach the doors. Attention was measured as the average length of gaze bouts and as the overall duration of visual orientation towards the different targets. Dogs gave preferential attention to the owner, who received longer gaze bouts and greater overall attention than the stranger. The preference was confirmed by the significant proportion of dogs that directed attention to the owner’s door at the end of the task. A modified version of the task was employed to measure dogs’ attention when the person’s head was not visible. This condition caused a decrease in attention parameters towards the owner.
How dogs scan familiar and inverted faces: an eye movement study | SpringerLink
Quote:
In this study, facial inversion effect (deficits in face processing when the image is turned upside down) and responses to personal familiarity were tested using eye movement tracking. A total of 23 pet dogs and eight kennel dogs were compared to establish the effects of life experiences on their scanning behavior. All dogs preferred conspecific faces and showed great interest in the eye area, suggesting that they perceived images representing faces. Dogs fixated at the upright faces as long as the inverted faces, but the eye area of upright faces gathered longer total duration and greater relative fixation duration than the eye area of inverted stimuli, regardless of the species (dog or human) shown in the image. Personally, familiar faces and eyes attracted more fixations than the strange ones, suggesting that dogs are likely to recognize conspecific and human faces in photographs. The results imply that face scanning in dogs is guided not only by the physical properties of images, but also by semantic factors.
Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris) - ScienceDirect
Quote:
There is also suggestive evidence that dogs can identify their owner or other familiar human individuals by using visual information from the face. However, most studies have used only dogs’ looking behavior to examine their visual processing of human faces and it has been demonstrated only that dogs can differentiate between familiar and unknown human faces. Here, we examined the dog's ability to discriminate the faces of two familiar persons by active choice (approach and touch). Furthermore, in successive stages of the experiment we investigated how well dogs discriminate humans in different representations by systematically reducing the informational richness and the quality of the stimuli. We found a huge inter-individual and inter-stage variance in performance, indicating differences across dogs in their learning ability as well as their selection of discriminative cues. On a group level, the performance of dogs significantly decreased when they were presented with pictures of human heads after having learned to discriminate the real heads, and when – after relearning – confronted with the same pictures showing only the inner parts of the heads. However, as two dogs quickly mastered all stages, we conclude that dogs are in principle able to discriminate people on the basis of visual information from their faces and by making active choices.
Recognition of human faces by dogs ( Canis familiaris) requires visibility of head contour | SpringerLink
Quote:
Experiment 1 of this study investigated whether dogs can recognise humans using visual information from the face/head region, and whether this also occurs in conditions of suboptimal visibility of the face. Dogs were presented with their owner’s and a stranger’s heads, protruding through openings of an apparatus in opposite parts of the experimental setting. Presentations occurred in conditions of either optimal or suboptimal visibility; the latter featured non-frontal orientation, uneven illumination and invisibility of outer contours of the heads. Instances where dogs approached their owners with a higher frequency than predicted by chance were considered evidence of recognition. This occurred only in the optimal condition. With a similar paradigm, Experiment 2 investigated which of the alterations in visibility that characterised the suboptimal condition accounted for dogs’ inability to recognise owners. Dogs approached their owners more frequently than predicted by chance if outer head contours were visible, but not if heads were either frontally oriented or evenly illuminated. Moreover, male dogs were slightly better at recognition than females. These findings represent the first clear demonstration that dogs can recognise human faces and that outer face elements are crucial for such a task, complementing previous research on human face processing in dogs.
Science is done. Observations are in. Dogs and humans see with eyes. :shocker:

Bizarrely, this fact doesn't seem to be at the core of electromagnetism.
The fact that they have to create all of these artificial conditions to figure out if a dog can recognize familiar faces goes to show that they cannot. Why is it that we can see that a dog recognizes a smell or a sound by his immediate reaction without having to set up an experiment? Why is it we can we tell if a dog likes the taste of something by his reaction without having to set up an experiment that dogs can recognize? This is an effort to confirm their original hypothesis. It's called confirmation bias. These experiments don't prove what you think they do.
__________________
"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
  #51511  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:22 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may not be true recognition but rather an ability to see differences in the light and dark that would allow the dog to choose the right picture to get the reward.
:lol:

In which of those studies did they give rewards for choosing the right picture? They didn't. About this "true recognition" thing, could this be something that you just made up? It just might!

Quote:
It would be easy enough to test this in your own home. Just like in the video I posted where the dog didn't see his master for 2 years (and was depressed because he missed him), but could not recognize him until he got a whiff of him, try this yourself. Let someone show two pictures to a dog (one of his master and one of a stranger) and see if there is any show of recognition like a wag of a tail or jumping up and down, or even trying to lick the picture. Anyone who has a dog can videotape this. I have never seen a dog get excited over seeing a picture of his master in all my years growing up with dogs.
:lol:

Sounds airtight! Why don't you perform this experiment and submit the results to a journal? Just promise that when it doesn't turn out the way it should, you will start arguing with yourself again.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51512  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:26 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that they have to create all of these artificial conditions to figure out if a dog can recognize familiar faces goes to show that they cannot. Why is it that we can see that a dog recognizes a smell or a sound by his immediate reaction without having to set up an experiment? Why is it we can we tell if a dog likes the taste of something by his reaction without having to set up an experiment that dogs can recognize? This is an effort to confirm their original hypothesis. It's called confirmation bias. These experiments don't prove what you think they do.
No, you dumbass, that's how you set up a controlled experiment. Putting aside the fact that you never went to school, you would absolutely suck as a scientist.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51513  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:27 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 Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
His claims were clearly spelled out.
That's true. In this instance, the claim is 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." It doesn't get any more clearly spelled out than that. :yup:

Is the quoted statement a claim? An astute observation? Both? Neither?

Never mind. Asking you to answer such questions is like asking a howler monkey with a brain injury to do calculus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
millions of babies born
Trillions, peacegirl, trillions. This is yet another fraudulent corruption on your part. Why do you resent Seymour Lessans so deeply?
These are trivial objections which is a logical fallacy. I knew there was a term for it. :yup:

Trivial objections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed.[1][2] This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet".[citation needed] Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways.[1][2]:165 These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument.[3] The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

Notice that Maturin and chuck keep harping on the same points over and over and over again as if they're new. I already told you that his statement may have been inaccurate. Maybe homosexuality is completely genetic. Maybe not being able to find a partner (like when a person is in prison), or a bad experience (which can lead someone to choose the same sex in their next relationship), is a very small percentage of people who are gay. But this HAS NO BEARING on his discoveries. IT IS A TRIVIAL OBJECTION. I agree that he should not have said 98%. If he was living, he would have removed it given that people are so sensitive regarding this subject. That is why I took it out. It would be sad if people listened to you and threw out the baby. I am glad you pointed out these few trivialities so I could take out the unnecessary. To repeat: All of these objections are TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS and can be easily identified by people-well versed in logical fallacy.
__________________
"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
  #51514  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:31 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that they have to create all of these artificial conditions to figure out if a dog can recognize familiar faces goes to show that they cannot. Why is it that we can see that a dog recognizes a smell or a sound by his immediate reaction without having to set up an experiment? Why is it we can we tell if a dog likes the taste of something by his reaction without having to set up an experiment that dogs can recognize? This is an effort to confirm their original hypothesis. It's called confirmation bias. These experiments don't prove what you think they do.
No, you dumbass, that's how you set up a controlled experiment. Putting aside the fact that you never went to school, you would absolutely suck as a scientist.
NO NO, 100 times NOOOOO. Good doctors use clinical accounts of parents who have observed their children to help them make a diagnosis. Observation is key here. Observation is part of the scientific method. You don't get to decide which is best, observation or experiment. Sometimes experiments are valuable and can give us good data, and sometimes they can mislead. You don't get to make the rules Buthead. :kookoo:
__________________
"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
  #51515  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:40 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
These are trivial objections which is a logical fallacy. I knew there was a term for it. :yup:

Trivial objections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed.[1][2] This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet".[citation needed] Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways.[1][2]:165 These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument.[3] The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

Notice that Maturin and chuck keep harping on the same points over and over and over again as if they're new. I already told you that his statement may have been inaccurate. Maybe homosexuality is completely genetic. Maybe not being able to find a partner (like when a person is in prison), or a bad experience (which can lead someone to choose the same sex in their next relationship), is a very small percentage of people who are gay. But this HAS NO BEARING on his discoveries. IT IS A TRIVIAL OBJECTION. I agree that he should not have said 98%. If he was living, he would have removed it given that people are so sensitive regarding this subject. That is why I took it out. It would be sad if people listened to you and threw out the baby. I am glad you pointed out these few trivialities so I could take out the unnecessary. To repeat: All of these objections are TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS and can be easily identified by people-well versed in logical fallacy.
We know, peacegirl - you dismiss the Authentic Text as "trivial." You don't even recognize it when you see it.

peacegirl, I understand why you must do this. Although your conscience is only operating at a 2 or 3, you know that your rape of the Authentic Text is evil, and you must dismiss it as trivial so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre at $41.00 a pop. But as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for this, for it is not a true hurt to the Authentic Text, because I consider the source.

Just look at your blameful words, peacegirl!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I agree that he should not have said 98% . . . That is why I took it out.
peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I would NEVER judge for the reader what the Author "should" and "should not" have written! And I would never put words in his mouth as you so glibly do in your Corrupted Text - at least when you're not busy deleting and suppressing and distorting huge swathes of the text. And peacegirl, you are the only one who is finding any homophobic meaning in the Author's words here. We have repeatedly said that we find no such content in the Authentic Text - unlike the bigoted expressions of blameful hate that you spew.

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

No, peacegirl - all I want to do is to interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I'm sorry you think that is trivial, but I refuse to accept your blame.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-14-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51516  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:44 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that they have to create all of these artificial conditions to figure out if a dog can recognize familiar faces goes to show that they cannot. Why is it that we can see that a dog recognizes a smell or a sound by his immediate reaction without having to set up an experiment? Why is it we can we tell if a dog likes the taste of something by his reaction without having to set up an experiment that dogs can recognize? This is an effort to confirm their original hypothesis. It's called confirmation bias. These experiments don't prove what you think they do.
No, you dumbass, that's how you set up a controlled experiment. Putting aside the fact that you never went to school, you would absolutely suck as a scientist.
It's interesting though, isn't it? I guess by Lessans logic, the eyes are in fact sense organs in some conditions.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51517  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:55 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

It's so sad that peacegirl dismisses her father's intellectual legacy as "trivial." :sadcheer:


Why all the father hatred, dear? :confused:
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-14-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51518  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:19 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 ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
These are trivial objections which is a logical fallacy. I knew there was a term for it. :yup:

Trivial objections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trivial objections (also referred to as hair-splitting, nothing but objections, barrage of objections and banal objections) is an informal logical fallacy where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed.[1][2] This type of argument is called a "quibble" or "quillet".[citation needed] Trivial objections are a special case of red herring.

The fallacy often appears when an argument is difficult to oppose. The person making a trivial objection may appear ready to accept the argument in question, but at the same time they will oppose it in many different ways.[1][2]:165 These objections can appear in the form of lists, hypotheticals, and even accusations.

Such objections themselves may be valid, but they fail to confront the main argument under consideration. Instead, the objection opposes a small, irrelevant part of the main argument.[3] The fallacy is committed because of this diversion; it is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.

Notice that Maturin and chuck keep harping on the same points over and over and over again as if they're new. I already told you that his statement may have been inaccurate. Maybe homosexuality is completely genetic. Maybe not being able to find a partner (like when a person is in prison), or a bad experience (which can lead someone to choose the same sex in their next relationship), is a very small percentage of people who are gay. But this HAS NO BEARING on his discoveries. IT IS A TRIVIAL OBJECTION. I agree that he should not have said 98%. If he was living, he would have removed it given that people are so sensitive regarding this subject. That is why I took it out. It would be sad if people listened to you and threw out the baby. I am glad you pointed out these few trivialities so I could take out the unnecessary. To repeat: All of these objections are TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS and can be easily identified by people-well versed in logical fallacy.
We know, peacegirl - you dismiss the Authentic Text as "trivial." You don't even recognize it when you see it.

peacegirl, I understand why you must do this. Although your conscience is only operating at a 2 or 3, you know that your rape of the Authentic Text is evil, and you must dismiss it as trivial so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre at $41.00 a pop. But as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for this, for it is not a true hurt to the Authentic Text, because I consider the source.

Just look at your blameful words, peacegirl!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I agree that he should not have said 98% . . . That is why I took it out.
peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I would NEVER judge for the reader what the Author "should" and "should not" have written! And I would never put words in his mouth as you so glibly do in your Corrupted Text - at least when you're not busy deleting and suppressing and distorting huge swathes of the text. And peacegirl, you are the only one who is finding any homophobic meaning in the Author's words here. We have repeatedly said that we find no such content in the Authentic Text - unlike the bigoted expressions of blameful hate that you spew.

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

No, peacegirl - all I want to do is to interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I'm sorry you think that is trivial, but I refuse to accept your blame.
Your opposition is what they call quibbling. You are a quibbler Chuck. Because you are a quibbler, you are using false logic as a smokescreen to make it appear as if what you are opposing is significant. When you stop lying, I will stop blaming. :yup:

Logic Chopping
(also known as: quibbling, nit-picking, smokescreen, splitting-hairs, trivial objections)

Description: Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute. Irrelevant over precision.

Logic Chopping
__________________
"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
  #51519  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:20 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 Florence Jellem View Post
It's so sad that peacegirl dismisses her father's intellectual legacy as "trivial." :sadcheer:


Why all the father hatred, dear? :confused:
You are sick David. :sick:
__________________
"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
  #51520  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:24 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You know it's the other way around.
Sorry, peacegirl. Much like Seymour Lessans, I'm not into fat chicks.

:stop2:
__________________
"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
  #51521  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:33 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCIV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
Why all the father hatred, dear? :confused:

__________________
"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:
But (04-15-2018), ChuckF (04-15-2018), Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), The Man (04-14-2018)
  #51522  
Old 04-15-2018, 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
You know it's the other way around.
Sorry, peacegirl. Much like Seymour Lessans, I'm not into fat chicks.

:stop2:
Another one of your fat lies. Show the audience where he said fat chicks were not desired. You are projecting again.
__________________
"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
  #51523  
Old 04-15-2018, 02:09 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXV
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Friends, gather ye round and hear the tale of Harry and Becky, husband and wife. You won't find this take in peacegirl's Corrupted Text, because she censored it. Fortunately, I, the most loyal True Steward of the Authentic Text, am here to rescue it!

Harry, unsatisfied with Becky, his "big fat sloppy nagging wife," is engaged in an adulterous affair with Mary. He is, as we will see, wrecking that ass.

Harry, having read Lessans, resolves to divorce fat Becky.

He provides copies of Lessans' book to both Becky and Mary. Mary inquires as to whether reducing the income of his wife and child makes their life more difficult - Harry says that it does, but reminds us that, after all, Becky is fat.

Harry and Mary proceed to engage in sexual relations. Harry notes that he could never perform this particular sexual act on his "big fat slob" wife.

Harry invites Mary to "turn around." Mary remarks that in order be married in the New World (i.e. to engage in sexual intercourse without contraception or perversion), she would need to "turn around" as contraception "includes this position." Harry is fucking Mary in the ass.

In the meantime, Harry's big fat slob wife, whom he has left because she is a big fat nagging slob, has read the book. She realizes that the problem is that she is fat. She resolves to "get back into shape." She goes on a blitz diet and visits a weight loss salon daily.

Harry returns to Becky. Becky cooks him his favorite dinner. No longer fat, Becky arouses her husband anew, and they engage in a sexual act. Harry realizes that he would be mathematically prevented from fucking Mary in the ass again. Lessans reminds us that not getting fat is of paramount in marriage, followed immediately by getting your partner horny BUT NO TOUCHING.

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51524  
Old 04-15-2018, 02:45 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
NO NO, 100 times NOOOOO. Good doctors use clinical accounts of parents who have observed their children to help them make a diagnosis. Observation is key here. Observation is part of the scientific method. You don't get to decide which is best, observation or experiment. Sometimes experiments are valuable and can give us good data, and sometimes they can mislead. You don't get to make the rules Buthead. :kookoo:
In those experiments, they astutely observed what the dogs did. Now what is the problem with all of those studies and why did the dogs react differently to pictures of people they knew vs. pictures of strangers? Something to do with dark and light patterns?

(Cue some more weaseling)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51525  
Old 04-15-2018, 03:37 AM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Well, boys, what we learn here — and we’ve discussed this in the private forums — is that Harry, under the slide rule in the no-blame environment of the Golden Age, was compelled of his own free will to leave Becky, his big fat slob of a wife, and to fuck Mary in the ass. This makes perfect sense. Why did peacegirl censor this? :confused:

We also learn that showing your love means getting back into physical shape.

What kind of dinner did Becky, after shedding her lard butt, cook Harry? Was it spaghetti and meatballs? One has to presume that she made a special study of cooking while shedding her lard butt.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), ChuckF (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
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 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.26837 seconds with 14 queries