#51526  
Old 04-15-2018, 03:59 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
What kind of dinner did Becky, after shedding her lard butt, cook Harry? Was it spaghetti and meatballs?


Quote:
One has to presume that she made a special study of cooking while shedding her lard butt.
Interestingly, this reveals another of peacegirl's Corruptions.

You will notice that her Corrupted text peevishly flimflams around gender roles. "Assuming that the husband is the breadwinner (for purposes of discussion)...Assuming that she is in charge of the meals..." This is, you will be unsurprised to learn, pure peacegirl Corruption. The Authentic Text brooks no such pathetic feebleness.


Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51527  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:28 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


:applaud:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018)
  #51528  
Old 04-15-2018, 01:11 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
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.

You are lost Chuck. You are purposely grabbing at an excerpt that would appear crazy if seen through your lens. Your attacks on these hypothetical scenarios just show more about your deceitful motives than anything else. I am sure you, in your belief that Lessans had nothing of value to offer, will influence all of your followers and that’s okay. I trust that God knows what he’s doing! :thumbsup:
__________________
"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
  #51529  
Old 04-15-2018, 02:14 PM
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: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

This material is so much better than the corrupted crap Peacegirl posts.

Thanks again to our wonderful True Steward Chuck.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51530  
Old 04-15-2018, 02:39 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
You are lost Chuck. You are purposely grabbing at an excerpt that would appear crazy if seen through your lens. Your attacks on these hypothetical scenarios just show more about your deceitful motives than anything else. I am sure you, in your belief that Lessans had nothing of value to offer, will influence all of your followers and that’s okay. I trust that God knows what he’s doing! :thumbsup:
peacegirl, which parts of the tale of Harry and Becky and Mary do you think are "crazy"? Is that why you suppressed it from your Corrupted Text, peacegirl? Did you think people would be less willing to pay $41.00 for your Corrupted Text if you left it in?

Because that is a key defect of your Corrupted Text, peacegirl. The Authentic Text is richly didactic, using lively and relatable characters like Harry (with his fat slob bitch nagging wife) to demonstrate key concepts. The malignant cancer of your Corruption has eaten all of this richness away. You replaced it with a limp, turgid and lifeless prose which often descends into gibberish, and contains huge portions that you just made up out of whole cloth and try to pass off as the Author's own words.

Why, just consider Harry and Becky and Mary. They show us how to use the book, how to implement its principles in daily life (something which you reject as impossible, declaring that one "cannot use these principles unless they're applied on a grand scale" - directly contrary to the Authentic Text), and how to model the outcomes. They show us how to imbibe that magic elixir (that corollary, that slide-rule) that you hatefully reject every single day: THOU SHALL NOT BLAME. For the benefit of us, the readers, they demonstrate the Butt Stuff Injunction in actual practice (first when Harry is fucking Mary in the ass, and again when Harry realizes he will not fuck Mary in the ass again).

Your Corrupted Text simply hacks all of this richness away, just because you think the Authentic Text is "crazy."

peacegirl, I think maybe if you spent a little more time reading the Authentic Text, you might be able to understand it. You might even be able to explain the Butt Stuff Injunction in your own words! But you can't, so you're a fraud :sad:

I still don't believe you have the Authentic Text in your possession as you claim. I believe you just took snapshots of pages that are online. peacegirl, if you ever decide that you wish to return to the Authentic Text, I will help you get a copy of it - as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, it would be my pleasure to do so.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51531  
Old 04-15-2018, 03:16 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=ChuckF;1310771]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are lost Chuck. You are purposely grabbing at an excerpt that would appear crazy if seen through your lens. Your attacks on these hypothetical scenarios just show more about your deceitful motives than anything else. I am sure you, in your belief that Lessans had nothing of value to offer, will influence all of your followers and that’s okay. I trust that God knows what he’s doing! :thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, which parts of the tale of Harry and Becky and Mary do you think are "crazy"? Is that why you suppressed it from your Corrupted Text, peacegirl? Did you think people would be less willing to pay $41.00 for your Corrupted Text if you left it in?

Because that is a key defect of your Corrupted Text, peacegirl. The Authentic Text is richly didactic, using lively and relatable characters like Harry (with his fat slob bitch nagging wife) to demonstrate key concepts. The malignant cancer of your Corruption has eaten all of this richness away. You replaced it with a limp, turgid and lifeless prose which often descends into gibberish, and contains huge portions that you just made up out of whole cloth and try to pass off as the Author's own words.
I am glad you like his book, but unfortunately you don't understand a thing. You did what he implored everyone not to do --- jump ahead. You don't appreciate this discovery at all; you're trying to put it in the worst possible light. What is the discovery Chuck? You won't answer because you don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Why, just consider Harry and Becky and Mary. They show us how to use the book, how to implement its principles in daily life (something which you reject as impossible, declaring that one "cannot use these principles unless they're applied on a grand scale" - directly contrary to the Authentic Text), and how to model the outcomes. They show us how to imbibe that magic elixir (that corollary, that slide-rule) that you hatefully reject every single day: THOU SHALL NOT BLAME. For the benefit of us, the readers, they demonstrate the Butt Stuff Injunction in actual practice (first when Harry is fucking Mary in the ass, and again when Harry realizes he will not fuck Mary in the ass again).
You are very confused Chuck, and you can't be quiet long enough to let me explain. You're just trying to make a fool out of me and a joke out of my father. I didn't say the principles cannot work, but they cannot work on a grand or global scale unless other conditions are set up. War can come to an end with the application of these principles, but it involves more than not blaming. Can you imagine if a leader in this volatile world situation decided to turn the other cheek? :glare: He said in Chapter Two, turning the other cheek (or refusing to blame) could make matters much much worse. In fact, this is not what he is advocating at all. He was using marriage as an example of two people who understand the principles. In this case, the principles could work to a limited degree, as we are still living in this world and there are outside pressures that can come into play.

To end any particular evil (and you are in for so many surprises)
requires that the people involved understand the principles that will be
explained. When they do, they will be given no choice but to stop the
evil, whatever it is they are engaged in. But whereas it is only
necessary to get the leaders of the world to understand the principles
to end all war, it takes all mankind to understand them to put a
permanent end to crime.”


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Your Corrupted Text simply hacks all of this richness away, just because you think the Authentic Text is "crazy."
No, I think my father's book is great but he did not anticipate the people who would jump ahead and take everything out of context for the purpose of creating lulz. Or maybe he did, which is why he took out the explicit sexual stuff in his later books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
peacegirl, I think maybe if you spent a little more time reading the Authentic Text, you might be able to understand it. You might even be able to explain the Butt Stuff Injunction in your own words! But you can't, so you're a fraud :sad:
You continue to use this book as lulz. You are a fraud of the worst kind because you consider yourself smarter than you actually are. You have no idea what his discovery is. :laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I still don't believe you have the Authentic Text in your possession as you claim. I believe you just took snapshots of pages that are online. peacegirl, if you ever decide that you wish to return to the Authentic Text, I will help you get a copy of it - as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, it would be my pleasure to do so.
I don't care what you think. I have his books, all of them and I will keep them safe for posterity.
__________________
"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; 04-15-2018 at 04:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51532  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:07 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

This section of the Authentic Text, mindlessly redacted by peacegirl, is an exemplar of Lessans’ discovery that Man’s Will Is Not Free, and all that necessarily follows from this fact. By omitting these passages, peacegirl demonstrates that she has no understanding of her father’s rich and variegated intellectual tapestry.

Notice, first, that Harry had no choice but to leave Becky, because who wants a big fat slob for a wife? Here we have a paradigmatic illustration of the principle that “man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

For Harry, Mary’s tight little tush was a satisfaction infinitely greater than Mary’s sprawling keister, over which Harry had hung a sign usually reserved for oversized trucks: CAUTION — WIDE LOAD.

Harry thus was compelled of his own free will to play back-door be-bop with Mary.

Notice that Harry was compelled — of his own free will — to do what he did. Thus, no one dast blame this man, first for hurting Becky by leaving her for Mary, and then by hurting Mary by leaving her to go back to Becky — but only after, of course, Becky had shed her big lard ass, gone to the beauty parlor, dyed her hair, and taken up a proper study of cooking and of how to turn on one’s man with NO TOUCHING. She was compelled of her own free will to do these things after reading Lessans’ book and understanding the magic elixir, the slide rule (what have you) of Thou Shalt Not Blame. Thus were the baser metals of Becky’s nature transmuted into gold.

It cannot be overemphasized that all the actors here were compelled of their own free will to do as they did. As Harry so eloquently puts it: “…what can I do, I don’t have a choice. … It’s just like this Lessans guy says …”

Notice also the Marriage Principle put into action. As long as Harry is contraceptively ramming Mary’s rear, they cannot be married; but as soon as he tries to make her pregnant, presto! They are married until death “do they part” [sic].

A clearer and more poignant elucidation of the core principles of this profound book cannot be imagined — an elucidation that peacegirl dismisses as “trivial.” This is exactly why she stripped out these passages. Either she does not understand her father’s teachings, or she does understand them and is trying to suppress them because of some inexplicable species of father hatred. Either way she stands indicted before a world longing for peace — a world of peace that would have arrived by 1980, were it not for peacegirl’s sabotage. Had that world arrived on time, my darling little Adolf would still be alive. Peacegirl murdered my Manchester terrier! :cry:

Bully! Murderess! Corruptrix!

:mad:
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51533  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:14 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
I have his books, all of them and I will keep them safe for posterity.
peacegirl, you betrayed that charge when you first set out to Corrupt the Authentic Text so you could hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre. You don't even understand the basics of the Authentic Text. What is the Butt Stuff Injunction peacegirl? You won't answer because you don't know.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-15-2018), Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51534  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:21 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 Florence Jellem View Post
Either way she stands indicted before a world longing for peace — a world of peace that would have arrived by 1980, were it not for peacegirl’s sabotage. Had that world arrived on time, my darling little Adolf would still be alive. Peacegirl murdered my Manchester terrier! :cry:

Bully! Murderess! Corruptrix!

:mad:
Truly the mind boggles at where this world might be in the Golden Age, but for peacegirl's Corruptions. The metaphor of Paul on the road to Damascus, having fallen by the wayside, would be replaced by Harry nut-deep in the Marian Hershey highway. Also the end of all war by 1980.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51535  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:26 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

So once again:

ChuckF - True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy

peacegirl - dishonest, incompetent, and malevolent

We find solace in the fact that peacegirl's incompetence means absolutely zero success for her fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt. However, her decision to drop trou, squat, position her unwashed backside directly over the Authentic Text, and shit all over this man's work makes us want to :projectilevomit:.

Still, we hope that former big fat sloppy pig of a hausfrau Becky will inspire peacegirl to get it together physically, start doing laundry again, and learn to cook a decent plate of steak, fries, fried onions, salad, creamed broccoli, iced tea and ice cream. If that happens, maybe peacegirl could land herself a mighty Lessantonian ubermensch like Harry.
__________________
"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), Florence Jellem (04-15-2018), Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51536  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:28 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
I have his books, all of them and I will keep them safe for posterity.
peacegirl, you betrayed that charge when you first set out to Corrupt the Authentic Text so you could hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre. You don't even understand the basics of the Authentic Text. What is the Butt Stuff Injunction peacegirl? You won't answer because you don't know.
Show me where he wrote this, and I'll answer. You won't answer because it's not there. You are a lost cause Chuck. You will never admit that you don't understand the discovery. Not only that, you could never entertain the possibility that Lessans was correct because of the damage you have already caused. You wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
__________________
"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
  #51537  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:39 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have his books, all of them and I will keep them safe for posterity.
peacegirl, you betrayed that charge when you first set out to Corrupt the Authentic Text so you could hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre. You don't even understand the basics of the Authentic Text. What is the Butt Stuff Injunction peacegirl? You won't answer because you don't know.
Show me where he wrote this, and I'll answer.
Er ... the Butt Stuff Injunction passages are reproduced directly above, dear. :confused: Remember? You were the one who redacted these gem-like passages.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (04-15-2018), Stephen Maturin (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51538  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:48 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
This section of the Authentic Text, mindlessly redacted by peacegirl, is an exemplar of Lessans’ discovery that Man’s Will Is Not Free, and all that necessarily follows from this fact. By omitting these passages, peacegirl demonstrates that she has no understanding of her father’s rich and variegated intellectual tapestry.

Notice, first, that Harry had no choice but to leave Becky, because who wants a big fat slob for a wife? Here we have a paradigmatic illustration of the principle that “man always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

For Harry, Mary’s tight little tush was a satisfaction infinitely greater than Mary’s sprawling keister, over which Harry had hung a sign usually reserved for oversized trucks: CAUTION — WIDE LOAD.

Harry thus was compelled of his own free will to play back-door be-bop with Mary.

Notice that Harry was compelled — of his own free will — to do what he did. Thus, no one dast blame this man, first for hurting Becky by leaving her for Mary, and then by hurting Mary by leaving her to go back to Becky — but only after, of course, Becky had shed her big lard ass, gone to the beauty parlor, dyed her hair, and taken up a proper study of cooking and of how to turn on one’s man with NO TOUCHING. She was compelled of her own free will to do these things after reading Lessans’ book and understanding the magic elixir, the slide rule (what have you) of Thou Shalt Not Blame. Thus were the baser metals of Becky’s nature transmuted into gold.

It cannot be overemphasized that all the actors here were compelled of their own free will to do as they did. As Harry so eloquently puts it: “…what can I do, I don’t have a choice. … It’s just like this Lessans guy says …”

Notice also the Marriage Principle put into action. As long as Harry is contraceptively ramming Mary’s rear, they cannot be married; but as soon as he tries to make her pregnant, presto! They are married until death “do they part” [sic].

A clearer and more poignant elucidation of the core principles of this profound book cannot be imagined — an elucidation that peacegirl dismisses as “trivial.” This is exactly why she stripped out these passages. Either she does not understand her father’s teachings, or she does understand them and is trying to suppress them because of some inexplicable species of father hatred. Either way she stands indicted before a world longing for peace — a world of peace that would have arrived by 1980, were it not for peacegirl’s sabotage. Had that world arrived on time, my darling little Adolf would still be alive. Peacegirl murdered my Manchester terrier! :cry:

Bully! Murderess! Corruptrix!

:mad:
You're so vengeful David. You can't stand that Lessans' discovery is not what you believe or want to be true, so you are trying in the worst way, just like Chuck and Maturin, to turn this book into a joke. Well guess what, you can't. Nothing you do is going to stop this new world from coming into existence, in due time of course. And for anyone new, when my father says: He was compelled, "of his own free will," it is not a contradiction. This was spelled out in Chapter One. Doing something "of one's own free will" in this context only means "of one's own desire". It does not mean that my actions were free in the sense of "could have done otherwise". You are trying to confuse people for your own personal reasons. Funny thing is out of all the threads on this forum and many others, you just can't seem to stay away. :laugh: And FYI, his prediction was based on the conviction that this discovery would have been thoroughly investigated. It was impossible for him to predict exactly when this knowledge would be brought to light. Make fun of that too. It will come back to haunt you.

Please understand that when the 20 century is mentioned, it is
referring to the time period when this finding was first uncovered.
The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil
was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have
already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there
has been no such investigation and, to this day, this discovery remains
in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing
some recent examples have been added to show how these principles
apply to our current world situation, but please be assured that the
actual discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in
the author’s own words. Although some of his references are dated,
the knowledge itself couldn’t be more timely. For purposes of
consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the
book. No discrimination was intended.
__________________
"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; 04-15-2018 at 05:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51539  
Old 04-15-2018, 04:51 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 looks like peacegirl is going to be booked for insubordination, will have to go to her corner. and go back to basic training!

peacegirl, your first assignment is to re-read Chapter 3 of the Authentic Text. Since you don't actually possess the Authentic Text, I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, invite you to read it here.

Your second assignment is to read the story of Harry and Becky and Mary, when Harry is fucking Mary in the ass.

If you still need help understanding the Butt Stuff Injunction, you can read this basic explication of the Butt Stuff Injunction. More advanced materials are available in the private forums.

peacegirl I am confident that you are capable of understanding this important lesson of the Authentic Text, if you are willing to stop hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre long enough to read it. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I extend to you an invitation to join us in interpreting the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51540  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:15 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
And for anyone new, when my father says: He was compelled, "of his own free will," it is not a contradiction. This was spelled out in Chapter One. Doing something "of one's own free will" in this context only means "of one's own desire". It does not mean that my actions were free in the sense of "could have done otherwise".
Actually, I (Flo is my aunt) do understand what he meant -- it's just that YOU DON'T understand what he meant.

Doing something in accordance with one's desires, while not being able to have "done otherwise" is called FUCKING COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL, you goddamned dummy. How many times did spacemonkey attempt to explain compatibilism to you? How many times did you whine that compatibilism is impossible?

Yet, here we have above -- your own explanation -- of what Lessans meant, and it's fucking compatibilism.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-15-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51541  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:19 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
I am very pleased to answer your questions as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
This is amazing. So - in the new world, there is no be no more protected sex. Any sex act that seeks to avoid pregnancy is a perversion.
Yes, but not in a derogatory sense! I am very glad you asked this, as it permits me to demonstrate the scientific application of undeniable mathematical relations that I used to deduce the Butt-stuff Injunction in a manner that brooks no opposition.

The meaning of love prior to bareback fucking is looking forward to the bareback fucking. (Sexual satisfaction is impossible with a rubber on, so it has to be bareback.) There are other, non-procreative sex tricks - perversions - but these are eliminated because they are blame-y, and probably only apply to fat chicks anyway. And no fat chicks in the Golden Age, remember.
WTF!!!! You are so mixed up Chuck, some people will misconstrue everything that was written, and you're one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
We thus arrive at a general rule excluding of non-procreative sex, BUT we can intertextually apply certain exceptions to this general rule. Recall that the 1972 Authentic Text provides for, in graphic terms, post-transitional fellatio ("I would sure like to suck his cock") and cunnilingus ("He made her come three times by sucking on [her juicy cunt]"). The express exception to the general prohibition therefore creates an Oral Sex Safe Harbor.
I can't even address this because you're interpretation is so fucked up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
There is also a case to be made for at least a limited carveout for boy-on-girl Fingerbang, based on a man's wandering hands, but this requires some additional liberty of construction that I am not yet comfortable taking, and in any event cannot apply to girl-on-boy Fingerbangs.

Thus, having proceeded from the general Rule Against Perversions and applied to the Oral Sex Safe Harbor, and setting aside the Fingerbang Carve-out, we arrive at the Butt-Stuff Injunction.

I see that you are unable to deny the mathematical principles!
There are no perversions Chuck, so how can there be a general rule against them?

As a result of showing utmost respect for each other, when
they put on their revealing clothes (they will be compelled to desire
each other tremendously) there will be a small atomic explosion of
passion every time they are drawn irresistibly together. They will learn
the many ways they can have fun because once they are married there
is no such thing as perversion which is a word with absolutely no
significance. Everything goes and no holds are barred unless it hurts
the other person, but remember most of the hurt you have been
experiencing where sex is concerned is one of the imagination. There
may still be times that your desire to experiment may not be preferred
by your partner, but in 100% of the cases when a couple get hot
enough and all psychological impediments have been long since
removed their great heat or extreme passion will make everything they
do enjoyable.

Quote:
So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?
Yes - otherwise, she had better not accept.
She is not agreeing to have 10-12 children. Where in the world did you get this idea? It's between a couple and how many children they want (they may not want any), and how many they can afford. It's the same conversation that couples have today.

Boys and girls will not have to be given permission to date
because they would never take risks that could cause someone to get
hurt while in the process of searching for a suitable partner. If a boy
happens to see a girl that he likes, he must in some way indicate to
her what he wants without physical contact. He may stand next to her
and flirt to show her he is interested and it is then up to her to accept
or decline the invitation. Likewise, if a girl sees a boy she likes she
simply stands near him and flirts and it is up to him to respond if he
is interested. With this new type of courtship the minute a girl
accepts a date she is extending the boy an invitation and if she is not
prepared to go all the way without contraception (because there is
always the possibility of pregnancy) she had better not accept since
there would be too much hurt involved, which would not give her
satisfaction under the new conditions. This prevents any chance of
taking advantage of a good thing because this would not give anyone
satisfaction knowing that there would be no blame in spite of the
suffering caused by loving and leaving, consequently, there would be
no fear of unrequited love to develop. You see, this is similar to the
conditions that make it unnecessary for a bank to check on the credit
of an individual before lending him money. The person borrowing
knows the bank wants to lend money and as long as he knows he can
pay it back, plus the interest, the bank extends an open invitation to
everyone who wishes to use its services. The wisdom here is amazing
if you analyze it carefully enough, and it is not mine.


Quote:
Even if perversion is no longer impossible once sex-married, it remains a problem that we know that A) young people will be sex-marrying earlier, and B) that a sex-marriage means unprotected sex, at least during the steamy rutting honeymoon that is described with such slavering relish in the book.
Young people will get married younger and they will stay together because they are in love. That is a lot better (don't ya think?) than marrying later in life after many failed attempts at love where hearts are broken time and time again often with devastating consequences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?
No Chuck, they will not. They will be more responsible than many kids today because they will not want to take the chance of putting the burden of financial responsibility onto their parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Now of course we know that the text is undeniable and mathematical, and that the author was a genius, because if he wasn't, he would have noticed and let us know. But I must admit to some trepidation at the thought of all these teenage pregnancies. Will every boy and girl in the future be ready for parenthood at 15?
This shows me how confused you really are. No surprise! :eek:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Does the Authentic Text shed any light on this, and on the burning question if condoms will be ok at any stage, or will these continually impassioned sex-marriages just produces babies at the rate of about 1 every year and a half or so?
The average boy and girl will be married between 16 and 18 - that's an average, but no range is given. We can establish a minimal range by the age of sex or nubility, which is presumably not puberty (because had the Author meant puberty, surely he could have said so), and I therefore take to mean the age at which a kid becomes bangable/marriageable by other teenagers. I would expect a non-trivial number of marriages in which at least one partner is 12-13.
You take a lot to mean whatever you darn well choose, and just about everything you've conjured up is WRONG! :laugh: The author meant the time where hormonal changes take place, but you are forgetting the most important thing; that is, with marriage (intimacy in this context), there comes a lot of responsibility with having a child and if they are too young to assume this kind of responsibility financially or emotionally, they would want to wait. That doesn't mean they could not have a sexual relationship since no one can be hurt under these conditions.
__________________
"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; 04-15-2018 at 05:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (04-15-2018)
  #51542  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:22 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
I am very pleased to answer your questions as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
This is amazing. So - in the new world, there is no be no more protected sex. Any sex act that seeks to avoid pregnancy is a perversion.
Yes, but not in a derogatory sense! I am very glad you asked this, as it permits me to demonstrate the scientific application of undeniable mathematical relations that I used to deduce the Butt-stuff Injunction in a manner that brooks no opposition.

The meaning of love prior to bareback fucking is looking forward to the bareback fucking. (Sexual satisfaction is impossible with a rubber on, so it has to be bareback.) There are other, non-procreative sex tricks - perversions - but these are eliminated because they are blame-y, and probably only apply to fat chicks anyway. And no fat chicks in the Golden Age, remember.
WTF!!!! You are so mixed up Chuck, some people will misconstrue everything that was written, and you're one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
We thus arrive at a general rule excluding of non-procreative sex, BUT we can intertextually apply certain exceptions to this general rule. Recall that the 1972 Authentic Text provides for, in graphic terms, post-transitional fellatio ("I would sure like to suck his cock") and cunnilingus ("He made her come three times by sucking on [her juicy cunt]"). The express exception to the general prohibition therefore creates an Oral Sex Safe Harbor.
I can't even address this because you're interpretation is so fucked up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
There is also a case to be made for at least a limited carveout for boy-on-girl Fingerbang, based on a man's wandering hands, but this requires some additional liberty of construction that I am not yet comfortable taking, and in any event cannot apply to girl-on-boy Fingerbangs.

Thus, having proceeded from the general Rule Against Perversions and applied to the Oral Sex Safe Harbor, and setting aside the Fingerbang Carve-out, we arrive at the Butt-Stuff Injunction.

I see that you are unable to deny the mathematical principles!
There are no perversions Chuck, so how can there be a general rule against them?

As a result of showing utmost respect for each other, when
they put on their revealing clothes (they will be compelled to desire
each other tremendously) there will be a small atomic explosion of
passion every time they are drawn irresistibly together. They will learn
the many ways they can have fun because once they are married there
is no such thing as perversion which is a word with absolutely no
significance. Everything goes and no holds are barred unless it hurts
the other person, but remember most of the hurt you have been
experiencing where sex is concerned is one of the imagination. There
may still be times that your desire to experiment may not be preferred
by your partner, but in 100% of the cases when a couple get hot
enough and all psychological impediments have been long since
removed their great heat or extreme passion will make everything they
do enjoyable. How is it possible for anyone to get hurt under these
conditions?
Quote:
So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?
Yes - otherwise, she had better not accept.
Quote:
Even if perversion is no longer impossible once sex-married, it remains a problem that we know that A) young people will be sex-marrying earlier, and B) that a sex-marriage means unprotected sex, at least during the steamy rutting honeymoon that is described with such slavering relish in the book.
Young people will get married younger and they will stay together because they are in love. That is a lot better than marrying later in life after many failed attempts at love where hearts are broken time and again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?
No Chuck, they will not. They will be more responsible than many kids today because they will not want to take the chance of putting the burden of financial responsibility onto their parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Now of course we know that the text is undeniable and mathematical, and that the author was a genius, because if he wasn't, he would have noticed and let us know. But I must admit to some trepidation at the thought of all these teenage pregnancies. Will every boy and girl in the future be ready for parenthood at 15?
This shows me that you are confused. Not a surprise! :surprise:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Does the Authentic Text shed any light on this, and on the burning question if condoms will be ok at any stage, or will these continually impassioned sex-marriages just produces babies at the rate of about 1 every year and a half or so?
The average boy and girl will be married between 16 and 18 - that's an average, but no range is given. We can establish a minimal range by the age of sex or nubility, which is presumably not puberty (because had the Author meant puberty, surely he could have said so), and I therefore take to mean the age at which a kid becomes bangable/marriageable by other teenagers. I would expect a non-trivial number of marriages in which at least one partner is 12-13.
You take a lot to mean whatever you damn well choose, and just about everything you've conjured up is WRONG! :laugh: The author meant the time where hormonal changes take place, but you are forgetting the most important thing; that is, with marriage (intimacy in this context), there comes a lot of responsibility not to get pregnant if they are too young to assume this kind of responsibility financially or emotionally. That doesn't mean they could not have a sexual relationship since no one can be hurt under these conditions.
peacegirl, I see you still can't explain the Butt Stuff Injunction. Sad.

:cheesywink:

Last edited by ChuckF; 04-15-2018 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (04-16-2018), The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51543  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:23 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

:bump:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And for anyone new, when my father says: He was compelled, "of his own free will," it is not a contradiction. This was spelled out in Chapter One. Doing something "of one's own free will" in this context only means "of one's own desire". It does not mean that my actions were free in the sense of "could have done otherwise".
Actually, I (Flo is my aunt) do understand what he meant -- it's just that YOU DON'T understand what he meant.

Doing something in accordance with one's desires, while not being able to have "done otherwise" is called FUCKING COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL, you goddamned dummy. How many times did spacemonkey attempt to explain compatibilism to you? How many times did you whine that compatibilism is impossible?

Yet, here we have above -- your own explanation -- of what Lessans meant, and it's fucking compatibilism.
Don't believe me? Go show what you just wrote to :richardnixon: Slattery, and watch him tell you that Lessans was, in fact, a compatibilist -- the very thing you have spent years denying is a valid proposition!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51544  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:37 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 But View Post
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)
:bump:
Reply With Quote
  #51545  
Old 04-15-2018, 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 davidm View Post
:bump:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And for anyone new, when my father says: He was compelled, "of his own free will," it is not a contradiction. This was spelled out in Chapter One. Doing something "of one's own free will" in this context only means "of one's own desire". It does not mean that my actions were free in the sense of "could have done otherwise".
Actually, I (Flo is my aunt) do understand what he meant -- it's just that YOU DON'T understand what he meant.

Doing something in accordance with one's desires, while not being able to have "done otherwise" is called FUCKING COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL, you goddamned dummy. How many times did spacemonkey attempt to explain compatibilism to you? How many times did you whine that compatibilism is impossible?

Yet, here we have above -- your own explanation -- of what Lessans meant, and it's fucking compatibilism.
Don't believe me? Go show what you just wrote to :richardnixon: Slattery, and watch him tell you that Lessans was, in fact, a compatibilist -- the very thing you have spent years denying is a valid proposition!
Slattery would not say that because that is not what it is. The only thing that it is even remotely akin to compatibilism (which is a stretch) is the fact that nothing can compel someone to do what he doesn't want to do. Determinism states that we have no control, and that our choices are decided for us before we even make them, which implies that we can't change our destiny which has already been written in stone. That is not the definition of "greater satisfaction." A person is free (you can use the term "free" if it's qualified) in that sense because nothing (not even an antecedent event) can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That is the other side of the two-sided equation which you haven't cared to understand.
__________________
"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; 04-15-2018 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #51546  
Old 04-15-2018, 05:55 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 But View Post
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)
:bump:
Like I said, in all my years growing up with dogs, I have never seen a dog react to a familiar face versus a stranger's face from a picture. These experiments have design flaws. Knowing he will get a reward, the dog can learn to distinguish different patterns but this does not equate with true recognition.
__________________
"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
  #51547  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:09 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

Again, the dogs don't get rewards based on what pictures they choose. Try again.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-15-2018)
  #51548  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:13 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 looks like peacegirl is going to be booked for insubordination, will have to go to her corner. and go back to basic training!

peacegirl, your first assignment is to re-read Chapter 3 of the Authentic Text. Since you don't actually possess the Authentic Text, I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, invite you to read it here.

Your second assignment is to read the story of Harry and Becky and Mary, when Harry is fucking Mary in the ass.

If you still need help understanding the Butt Stuff Injunction, you can read this basic explication of the Butt Stuff Injunction. More advanced materials are available in the private forums.

peacegirl I am confident that you are capable of understanding this important lesson of the Authentic Text, if you are willing to stop hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre long enough to read it. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I extend to you an invitation to join us in interpreting the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.
I did read it. I grew up with it. As for your invitation to your ridiculous sub-forum of which you are not a true steward, my answer is NO THANKS. I'd rather eat dirt. :sadcheer:
__________________
"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
  #51549  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:15 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
Again, the dogs don't get rewards based on what pictures they choose. Try again.
I would like to see the experiment replicated many times. Let's see then if the statistical significance stays at 80%.
__________________
"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
  #51550  
Old 04-15-2018, 06:15 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
It looks like peacegirl is going to be booked for insubordination, will have to go to her corner. and go back to basic training!

peacegirl, your first assignment is to re-read Chapter 3 of the Authentic Text. Since you don't actually possess the Authentic Text, I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, invite you to read it here.

Your second assignment is to read the story of Harry and Becky and Mary, when Harry is fucking Mary in the ass.

If you still need help understanding the Butt Stuff Injunction, you can read this basic explication of the Butt Stuff Injunction. More advanced materials are available in the private forums.

peacegirl I am confident that you are capable of understanding this important lesson of the Authentic Text, if you are willing to stop hawking your Corrupted Text for lucre long enough to read it. As the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I extend to you an invitation to join us in interpreting the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.
I did read it. I grew up with it. As for your invitation to your ridiculous sub-forum of which you are not the true steward, my answer is no thanks. I'd rather eat dirt. :sadcheer:
:shrug: Ok. I thought I would at least ask if you have any interest in discussing the actual words that the Author wrote and published in his lifetime, instead of the stuff that you just made up. I guess you don't. You have that right of way, peacegirl. That is your business, not mine.

But I am not surprised.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-15-2018)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 25 (0 members and 25 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 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.75699 seconds with 14 queries