#49626  
Old 01-03-2017, 12:31 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
GdB: please be advised of the important differences between peacegirl's Corrupted Text, which peacegirl hawks online, and the Authentic Text, of which I am the True Steward. In no event should the former, which is replete with peacegirl's own Corruptions, be mistaken for the latter.
Thanks for the warning. But this privilege of yours has a consequence. ('Noblesse oblige') Please compare Lessans' views on free will between Peacegirl's test, and the Authentic Text.

PS
Ben je echt een Nederlander? Of doe je maar alsof?
With pleasure! peacegirl's nonsense babble (which she dishonestly presents as her father's nonsense babble) on the subject of free will is simply incoherent nattering. Like the rest of her rather bland Corrupted Text, I do not find it interesting or engaging on any level.

The Authentic Text, you see, is a literary work. It is not the clunky, pedestrian heap of twaddle that peacegirl hawks at $41.00 a copy. It is a Zeitroman of the America of the 1960s and 1970s, clothed in a charming picaresque. peacegirl has mistaken the protagonist's ceaseless chatter for philosophical revelation, about the nature of eyesight, free will, and juicy cunts and glandular homo-sexuals. What she doesn't simply delete, she attempts to uncritically translate this into some commercial gain in her Corrupted Text.

In reality, however, the Authentic Text contains much, much more. It is a moral recoil against the horrors of World War II, and a search for a national soul in the grip of Vietnam. It is a comment on the machine state, and the wedding of our individual fates with impersonal technologies. The sexual revolution is cast, in amusing and ribald terms, as a general eruption of sexual frustration rather than sexual liberation. It is, at its core, a stinging rebuke of the national preoccupiation with and apparent need for a guru, and an effete and navel-gazing academia.

What peacegirl takes to be a literal, actual "observation" regarding free will is, in fact, part of a rather devastating comment on the embrace of hedonism for which the era is well known. That its vessel assumes the persona of a self-appointed, pool-shark "Messiah" is, of course, potent comment in itself. What peacegirl reads as the rather comical conjecture that light is a property of the eye, and the famous proof by dog eyes, strikes at an academic establishment that has divorced itself from the society that it inhabits, and become unmoored from the principles it should embody. Recall, for example, a horrifying thought experiment involving the the mutilation and confinement of a solitary infant, existing for years in an isolation chamber and surviving on intravenous glucose, or an absurd experiment involving a vicious dog an fifty immobile individuals. The results of these "experiments" tend to be absurd non-sequiturs, but their inventor seeks and receives equally absurd admiration! This commentary recalls the Milgram experiment, Timothy Leary and the "turn on, tune in, drop out" counterculture of the era, and later even the Stanford prison experiments, as well as the other horrors undertaken in the name of science in the recent past. This "discovery" in fact damns the emergence of an morally unaccountable class of technologists at the top of society.

The Authentic Text expresses views on free will only on the most superficial and obviously facile level; it is so facile that it invites - even demands - the reader to explore more deeply the subtext that informs it. I have elsewhere noted its resonance with Philip Roth and John Barth. The more I consider the Authentic Text, the more I find to tie it to its place and time. Consider, for example, the metafictional dimension of the Authentic Text: the Authentic Text itself involves the Author’s efforts to have the Authentic Text published - c.f. The Sotweed Factor or even Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. It is there, as late modernism/postmodernism unfolds, not in vacuum.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. This is why, in my view, it is so important to distinguish the Authentic Text from the Corrupted Text.

And to answer your question, I’m not Dutch! Just an honorary Dutchman. Because I don’t want to be a Belgian and there’s no room in Luxembourg until at least one boar leaves.

Last edited by ChuckF; 01-03-2017 at 12:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017), Vivisectus (01-03-2017)
  #49627  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:15 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
GdB: please be advised of the important differences between peacegirl's Corrupted Text, which peacegirl hawks online, and the Authentic Text, of which I am the True Steward. In no event should the former, which is replete with peacegirl's own Corruptions, be mistaken for the latter.
Thanks for the warning. But this privilege of yours has a consequence. ('Noblesse oblige') Please compare Lessans' views on free will between Peacegirl's test, and the Authentic Text.

PS
Ben je echt een Nederlander? Of doe je maar alsof?
With pleasure! peacegirl's nonsense babble (which she dishonestly presents as her father's nonsense babble) on the subject of free will is simply incoherent nattering. Like the rest of her rather bland Corrupted Text, I do not find it interesting or engaging on any level.

The Authentic Text, you see, is a literary work. It is not the clunky, pedestrian heap of twaddle that peacegirl hawks at $41.00 a copy. It is a Zeitroman of the America of the 1960s and 1970s, clothed in a charming picaresque. peacegirl has mistaken the protagonist's ceaseless chatter for philosophical revelation, about the nature of eyesight, free will, and juicy cunts and glandular homo-sexuals. What she doesn't simply delete, she attempts to uncritically translate this into some commercial gain in her Corrupted Text.

In reality, however, the Authentic Text contains much, much more. It is a moral recoil against the horrors of World War II, and a search for a national soul in the grip of Vietnam. It is a comment on the machine state, and the wedding of our individual fates with impersonal technologies. The sexual revolution is cast, in amusing and ribald terms, as a general eruption of sexual frustration rather than sexual liberation. It is, at its core, a stinging rebuke of the national preoccupiation with and apparent need for a guru, and an effete and navel-gazing academia.

What peacegirl takes to be a literal, actual "observation" regarding free will is, in fact, part of a rather devastating comment on the embrace of hedonism for which the era is well known. That its vessel assumes the persona of a self-appointed, pool-shark "Messiah" is, of course, potent comment in itself. What peacegirl reads as the rather comical conjecture that light is a property of the eye, and the famous proof by dog eyes, strikes at an academic establishment that has divorced itself from the society that it inhabits, and become unmoored from the principles it should embody. Recall, for example, a horrifying thought experiment involving the the mutilation and confinement of a solitary infant, existing for years in an isolation chamber and surviving on intravenous glucose, or an absurd experiment involving a vicious dog an fifty immobile individuals. The results of these "experiments" tend to be absurd non-sequiturs, but their inventor seeks and receives equally absurd admiration! This commentary recalls the Milgram experiment, Timothy Leary and the "turn on, tune in, drop out" counterculture of the era, and later even the Stanford prison experiments, as well as the other horrors undertaken in the name of science in the recent past. This "discovery" in fact damns the emergence of an morally unaccountable class of technologists at the top of society.

The Authentic Text expresses views on free will only on the most superficial and obviously facile level; it is so facile that it invites - even demands - the reader to explore more deeply the subtext that informs it. I have elsewhere noted its resonance with Philip Roth and John Barth. The more I consider the Authentic Text, the more I find to tie it to its place and time. Consider, for example, the metafictional dimension of the Authentic Text: the Authentic Text itself involves the Author’s efforts to have the Authentic Text published - c.f. The Sotweed Factor or even Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. It is there, as late modernism/postmodernism unfolds, not in vacuum.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. This is why, in my view, it is so important to distinguish the Authentic Text from the Corrupted Text.

And to answer your question, I’m not Dutch! Just an honorary Dutchman. Because I don’t want to be a Belgian and there’s no room in Luxembourg until at least one boar leaves.
GdB, to really know who the true imposter is, you will need to study the two texts to see if I did anything to corrupt the true meaning of what was being expressed. You will be unable to know the truth short of this effort. BTW, the kindle is a mere $4.95 that he conveniently forgot to mention. This insane interpretation has nothing whatsoever to do with the book. There is nothing that even resembles the intention of the author. This goofy post is a reflection of Chucks obsession with the 60's and 70's which is the vantage point from which he judges this most important work. Based on this nutty interpretation, I can only conclude that this is a projection of Chuck's unmet sexual needs. I would love to be a fly on the wall at his therapy session! :biglaugh:
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-03-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49628  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:19 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
actually read what Lessans wrote
This - this is the key. The only authentic text is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. The Corrupted Text that peacegirl hawks for lucre online is corrupt and must be rejected.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017), Vivisectus (01-03-2017)
  #49629  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:24 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This insane interpretation of my effort to help explain the concepts
peacegirl, to be clear, I do not interpret and have no interest in your Corrupted Text, because it is corrupt. I reject your Corrupted Text that you hawk for lucre. I will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and I shall do so without blame from you.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017), Vivisectus (01-03-2017)
  #49630  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:35 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This insane interpretation of my effort to help explain the concepts
peacegirl, to be clear, I do not interpret and have no interest in your Corrupted Text, because it is corrupt. I reject your Corrupted Text that you hawk for lucre. I will interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and I shall do so without blame from you.
This is great Chuck. Now people will read the books and compare them. I am grateful to you! :D
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49631  
Old 01-03-2017, 01:41 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Goodbye! :wave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is great Chuck. Now people will read the books and compare them. I am grateful to you! :D
:lol:

Hi peacegirl! :hai: You made it one whole day this time!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), Dragar (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017)
  #49632  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:08 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Goodbye! :wave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is great Chuck. Now people will read the books and compare them. I am grateful to you! :D
:lol:

Hi peacegirl! :hai: You made it one whole day this time!
Hear ye hear ye, calling all real philosophers to read both texts and point how my corruptions in explaining the actual discovery. Then we'll be able to determine who the real steward is and who is the real imposter! :yup:
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-03-2017 at 02:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49633  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:14 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hear he hear he, calling all real philosophers to read both texts and point how my corruptions in explaining the actual discovery. Then we'll be able to determine who the real steward is and who is the real imposter! :yup:
:lol:


:loud:

peacegirl, why would anyone read your Corrupted Text? You're just like a fraudster passing a bad check, so it can be compared to a real check.

peacegirl, like a bad check, your Corrupted Text has no value, because it is Corrupt and it is not the Authentic Text.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017)
  #49634  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:25 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hear he hear he, calling all real philosophers to read both texts and point how my corruptions in explaining the actual discovery. Then we'll be able to determine who the real steward is and who is the real imposter! :yup:
:lol:


:loud:

peacegirl, why would anyone read your Corrupted Text? You're just like a fraudster passing a bad check, so it can be compared to a real check.

peacegirl, like a bad check, your Corrupted Text has no value, because it is Corrupt and it is not the Authentic Text.
That's my iphone for ya. Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else. You are a bunch of hot air!
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49635  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:29 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else.
Of course, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have the Authentic Text - though it is obvious that you do not respect the Authentic Text at all. Otherwise you would not have Corrupted it so. Perhaps that is why you characterize it as a nothing. It is quite sad, really, if only to see a father so harshly rebuked. :tear:

peacegirl, I do not expect you to embrace the Authentic Text. If you did, you would not hawk the Corrupted Text online for lucre. I understand that you reject the author's actual work in favor of your own Corrupted Text. You have that right of way. But I will not permit your hatred and blame to prevent my #TrueStewardship of the Authentic Text.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017)
  #49636  
Old 01-03-2017, 03:06 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else.
Of course, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have the Authentic Text - though it is obvious that you do not respect the Authentic Text at all. Otherwise you would not have Corrupted it so. Perhaps that is why you characterize it as a nothing. It is quite sad, really, if only to see a father so harshly rebuked. :tear:

peacegirl, I do not expect you to embrace the Authentic Text. If you did, you would not hawk the Corrupted Text online for lucre. I understand that you reject the author's actual work in favor of your own Corrupted Text. You have that right of way. But I will not permit your hatred and blame to prevent my #TrueStewardship of the Authentic Text.
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49637  
Old 01-03-2017, 04:01 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
:sad: peacegirl, it is tragic to see you so hatefully swat away the magic elixir (call it what you will - corollary, slide rule, or basic principle) extended by the Author in the Authentic Text. But this you must, I suppose, when you practice to corrupt, as you do.



For those of you interested in the exegesis of the Authentic Text, notice the metafictional device to which I alluded earlier ("I'm going to give each of you a copy of what was just discussed...") which, by self-reference, incorporates the reader into the manuscript itself. Note, too, the comment on the modern academy by ironic archaism through the reference to alchemy ("transmute the baser metals of human nature into . . . pure gold") , and the tart reply to the cry for a spiritual guru ("I extend this magic elixir...")
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), But (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), thedoc (01-03-2017), Vivisectus (01-03-2017)
  #49638  
Old 01-03-2017, 06:00 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
:sad: peacegirl, it is tragic to see you so hatefully swat away the magic elixir (call it what you will - corollary, slide rule, or basic principle) extended by the Author in the Authentic Text. But this you must, I suppose, when you practice to corrupt, as you do.



For those of you interested in the exegesis of the Authentic Text, notice the metafictional device to which I alluded earlier ("I'm going to give each of you a copy of what was just discussed...") which, by self-reference, incorporates the reader into the manuscript itself. Note, too, the comment on the modern academy by ironic archaism through the reference to alchemy ("transmute the baser metals of human nature into . . . pure gold") , and the tart reply to the cry for a spiritual guru ("I extend this magic elixir...")
So the author rightly offered to provide anyone interested with a free copy of the authentic Text, as opposed to Peacegirls money grubbing efforts to sell the book for an outrageous price of $41.00. Clearly Peacegirl is more of a profit than a prophet.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017)
  #49639  
Old 01-03-2017, 10:00 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
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
Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else.
Of course, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have the Authentic Text - though it is obvious that you do not respect the Authentic Text at all. Otherwise you would not have Corrupted it so. Perhaps that is why you characterize it as a nothing. It is quite sad, really, if only to see a father so harshly rebuked. :tear:

peacegirl, I do not expect you to embrace the Authentic Text. If you did, you would not hawk the Corrupted Text online for lucre. I understand that you reject the author's actual work in favor of your own Corrupted Text. You have that right of way. But I will not permit your hatred and blame to prevent my #TrueStewardship of the Authentic Text.
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
Quite the reverse: anyone reading Chucks posts can see that he has analysed the text well past the lazy surface-level reading you gave it. You seem to have read it in the same way that certain fundamentalist evangelicals read the Bible: as a simple set of instructions that do not require any understanding, but that just have to be accepted as gospel truth and then memorized.

And whenever the text did not lend itself to such a reading, you simply redacted it until it seemed to do so... sometimes even adding your own text wholesale, like the anti-vaccine drivel you shoe-horned into it.

Chuck has no need to invoke "astute observations" that are both claim and evidence of their own veracity, the way you have. He has no need to constantly claim that some future proof will surface to explain away the conflicts with observable reality the way you do about once every page. There is no need for him to constantly equate disagreement with bias. That is because rather than corrupt the text to fit his biases and emotional needs, he just reads the text as the author actually wrote it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), But (01-03-2017), ChuckF (01-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
  #49640  
Old 01-03-2017, 10:55 AM
GdB's Avatar
GdB GdB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: CCCLXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
In all fairness, you just have to correct my rendition of your view on free will. See my 'navy blue' lines above. Is this a correct outline of your position or not? When not, how should it be corrected?
I want your viewpoint in an unambiguous formulation, where the term used have unambiguous meanings.
I read them. We are not in disagreement.
But you realise this is exactly what compatibilism is saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My question to you is, if a person is not ultimately responsible, where does punishment or just desert come into play? Being able to reflect on one's actions is something humans are capable of doing.
A person is responsible when he is capable to reflect of the consequences of his actions. These include moral and penal consequences.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if the choice a person should be making is not the better choice in his eyes after pondering all the possibilities and the potential consequences? This is a hypothetical question at this point because I understand why threats of punishment are used as a deterrent.
No idea what you mean. Please give a realistic example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Ah! First you say that 'definitions mean nothing when reality is concerned'. But now they must describe something real. Well, do you think that the capability to act according your own intentions is a capability most people have? Is it real that people act because of their intentions? Whatever we call this capability?
Absolutely GDB. The problem is that these intentions and consequent actions (based on the compatibilist definition of free will) could be any different than what they are.
Again: no idea what you are saying here. Please give an example.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
  #49641  
Old 01-03-2017, 11:26 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else.
Of course, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have the Authentic Text - though it is obvious that you do not respect the Authentic Text at all. Otherwise you would not have Corrupted it so. Perhaps that is why you characterize it as a nothing. It is quite sad, really, if only to see a father so harshly rebuked. :tear:

peacegirl, I do not expect you to embrace the Authentic Text. If you did, you would not hawk the Corrupted Text online for lucre. I understand that you reject the author's actual work in favor of your own Corrupted Text. You have that right of way. But I will not permit your hatred and blame to prevent my #TrueStewardship of the Authentic Text.
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
Quite the reverse: anyone reading Chucks posts can see that he has analysed the text well past the lazy surface-level reading you gave it. You seem to have read it in the same way that certain fundamentalist evangelicals read the Bible: as a simple set of instructions that do not require any understanding, but that just have to be accepted as gospel truth and then memorized.

And whenever the text did not lend itself to such a reading, you simply redacted it until it seemed to do so... sometimes even adding your own text wholesale, like the anti-vaccine drivel you shoe-horned into it.

Chuck has no need to invoke "astute observations" that are both claim and evidence of their own veracity, the way you have. He has no need to constantly claim that some future proof will surface to explain away the conflicts with observable reality the way you do about once every page. There is no need for him to constantly equate disagreement with bias. That is because rather than corrupt the text to fit his biases and emotional needs, he just reads the text as the author actually wrote it.
I added examples to clarify certain things. I changed some words and left out the explicit parts because I knew if people did not read in context they would use this against him and the discovery would be misunderstood or worse, ignored. The basic concepts remain intact and are structurally sound. Your ranting and raving that my version is corrupt is an effort to make this entire discussion a joke, but you or him or anyone with this motive will fail spectacularly.
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49642  
Old 01-03-2017, 12:39 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I am glad you admit to changing the text according to your own, very shallow and limited, understanding. Are you capable of astutely observing relations that can save the world? Of course not: all you can do is follow someone who could.

Then how can you presume to know what is important and what is not?

This was the hubris that turned you from steward into a corrupter, and your book became a joke. But now fortunately we have a true steward of the authentic text. #Truestewardship
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), But (01-03-2017), ChuckF (01-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
  #49643  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Figures that's the type of trivia you grab onto because you have nothing else.
Of course, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I have the Authentic Text - though it is obvious that you do not respect the Authentic Text at all. Otherwise you would not have Corrupted it so. Perhaps that is why you characterize it as a nothing. It is quite sad, really, if only to see a father so harshly rebuked. :tear:

peacegirl, I do not expect you to embrace the Authentic Text. If you did, you would not hawk the Corrupted Text online for lucre. I understand that you reject the author's actual work in favor of your own Corrupted Text. You have that right of way. But I will not permit your hatred and blame to prevent my #TrueStewardship of the Authentic Text.
Anybody who reads your posts in earnest can easily see you're a bunch of crap. I am justified in blaming you for the lies you are spewing, and I will continue to blame you because your actions are blameworthy!
Quite the reverse: anyone reading Chucks posts can see that he has analysed the text well past the lazy surface-level reading you gave it. You seem to have read it in the same way that certain fundamentalist evangelicals read the Bible: as a simple set of instructions that do not require any understanding, but that just have to be accepted as gospel truth and then memorized.
It's quite the opposite, but in order to be able to analyze the text well past the lazy surface-level that Chuck gave it, you have to actually read it carefully. He did no such thing. Stop giving your crony such credit. He doesn't understand anything. He has no idea why man's will is not free and he keeps telling me to stop blaming him as if he thinks I'm going against the principles. This is the biggest giveaway of all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
And whenever the text did not lend itself to such a reading, you simply redacted it until it seemed to do so... sometimes even adding your own text wholesale, like the anti-vaccine drivel you shoe-horned into it.
I told you why I put that in. I didn't say people shouldn't vaccinate. I said that a subset of children have died or been injured. For that reason, in the new world vaccination would never be made mandatory. "If there is a risk, we must have a choice." You're not god Vivisectus so you shouldn't play god. You won't have a choice in the new world but not by force, which you don't understand either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Chuck has no need to invoke "astute observations" that are both claim and evidence of their own veracity, the way you have. He has no need to constantly claim that some future proof will surface to explain away the conflicts with observable reality the way you do about once every page. There is no need for him to constantly equate disagreement with bias. That is because rather than corrupt the text to fit his biases and emotional needs, he just reads the text as the author actually wrote it.
This guy doesn't have a clue what this book is about so he can say anything he wants without one shred of understanding and make it sound like he's smart. I still am challenging any real philosopher to study these two books to see whether my compilation has kept its integrity.
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49644  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:21 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I am glad you admit to changing the text according to your own, very shallow and limited, understanding. Are you capable of astutely observing relations that can save the world? Of course not: all you can do is follow someone who could.

Then how can you presume to know what is important and what is not?

This was the hubris that turned you from steward into a corrupter, and your book became a joke. But now fortunately we have a true steward of the authentic text. #Truestewardship
Then there's no need for me to be here. Let him answer your questions.
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49645  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:41 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I added examples to clarify certain things. I changed some words and left out the explicit parts
We know, peacegirl - you corrupted the text.
Quote:
Your ranting and raving that my version is corrupt
peacegirl, it has nothing to do with Vivisectus or anyone else here - your Corrupted Text is corrupt, just as two plus two is four, and I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I still am challenging any real philosopher to study these two books to see whether my compilation has kept its integrity.
peacegirl, this is like challenging a banker to cash your bad check to study whether it has any value! Your Corrupted Text is corrupt. Your "challenge", like your manifold Corruptions themselves, is a gambit to con unsuspecting consumers into buying your Corrupted Text - to hoodwink them into buying your knockoff thinking that it is the Authentic Text. It's a scam straight out of the Big Pharma playbook. :sad: It's precisely why the Authentic Text cried out to me to be the #TrueSteward.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
  #49646  
Old 01-03-2017, 02:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=GdB;1281197]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
All I am asking you is to not take anyone's quick summary of this knowledge. In all fairness, you need to read the first three chapters of the book, not Davids rendition. That is not asking too much, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
In all fairness, you just have to correct my rendition of your view on free will. See my 'navy blue' lines above. Is this a correct outline of your position or not? When not, how should it be corrected?
I want your viewpoint in an unambiguous formulation, where the term used have unambiguous meanings.
I read them. We are not in disagreement.
But you realise this is exactly what compatibilism is saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My question to you is, if a person is not ultimately responsible, where does punishment or just desert come into play? Being able to reflect on one's actions is something humans are capable of doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A person is responsible when he is capable to reflect of the consequences of his actions. These include moral and penal consequences.[quote]

He is responsible for his actions in that he performed the action, no one else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what if the choice a person should be making is not the better choice in his eyes after pondering all the possibilities and the potential consequences? This is a hypothetical question at this point because I understand why threats of punishment are used as a deterrent.
[quote="GDB
No idea what you mean. Please give a realistic example.
Any thought process to determine which choice is the better one is limited to one's environment, experiences, and heredity and each and every moment only one choice is possible when there are meaningful differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Ah! First you say that 'definitions mean nothing when reality is concerned'. But now they must describe something real. Well, do you think that the capability to act according your own intentions is a capability most people have? Is it real that people act because of their intentions? Whatever we call this capability?
Absolutely GDB. The problem is that these intentions and consequent actions (based on the compatibilist definition of free will) could be any different than what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB
Again: no idea what you are saying here. Please give an example.
I cannot move on unless you read Chapter One.

https://philpapers.org/archive/lesdaf.pdf
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-03-2017 at 03:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49647  
Old 01-03-2017, 03:01 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
It's quite the opposite, but in order to be able to analyze the text well past the lazy surface-level that Chuck gave it, you have to actually read it carefully. He did no such thing. Stop giving your crony such credit. He doesn't understand anything. He has no idea why man's will is not free and he keeps telling me to stop blaming him as if he thinks I'm going against the principles. This is the biggest giveaway of all.
More hubris. Only Peacegirl knows what the author meant as opposed to what he actually wrote. Fortunately we now have someone more humble and loyal to the text to look after it.

Quote:
I told you why I put that in. I didn't say people shouldn't vaccinate. I said that a subset of children have died or been injured. For that reason, in the new world vaccination would never be made mandatory. "If there is a risk, we must have a choice." You're not god Vivisectus so you shouldn't play god. You won't have a choice in the new world but not by force, which you don't understand either.
Indeed, you smuggled in your own pet cause, hiding the fact it was not the authors writing... and now you try to pretend that this is fine. It is beyond ironic that you would happily commit such hubris, and then accuse those who point it out of playing god!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Chuck has no need to invoke "astute observations" that are both claim and evidence of their own veracity, the way you have. He has no need to constantly claim that some future proof will surface to explain away the conflicts with observable reality the way you do about once every page. There is no need for him to constantly equate disagreement with bias. That is because rather than corrupt the text to fit his biases and emotional needs, he just reads the text as the author actually wrote it.
This guy doesn't have a clue what this book is about so he can say anything he wants without one shred of understanding and make it sound like he's smart. I still am challenging any real philosopher to study these two books to see whether my compilation has kept its integrity.
That is odd: are you referring to those biased academia that your book spends several pages fomenting against? Are those the "real philosophers" to whose authority you are trying to appeal?

Not that it matters much: we have all seen that you were unable to defend your version without resorting to the bizarre stratagems I described above: appeals to future evidence to explain what we can clearly observe in reality, equating objections with bias as an excuse for your inability to address them, or weird "astute observations" which you said are claims that are their own evidence.

Unless those are caused by flaws in the authors work (blasphemy!) then they must be caused by your redaction. You cannot have one cake in hand and eat five in the bush, peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), But (01-03-2017), ChuckF (01-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
  #49648  
Old 01-03-2017, 03:22 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
It's quite the opposite, but in order to be able to analyze the text well past the lazy surface-level that Chuck gave it, you have to actually read it carefully. He did no such thing. Stop giving your crony such credit. He doesn't understand anything. He has no idea why man's will is not free and he keeps telling me to stop blaming him as if he thinks I'm going against the principles. This is the biggest giveaway of all.
More hubris. Only Peacegirl knows what the author meant as opposed to what he actually wrote. Fortunately we now have someone more humble and loyal to the text to look after it.
Indeed, Vivisectus, indeed. I had hoped that peacegirl would at least recognize that I am compelled to be the #TrueSteward of the Authentic Text of my own free will, of course. I can no more give up being the #TrueSteward than peacegirl could cease hawking her Corrupted Text online for lucre. When one observes how hatefully she blames me for my #TrueStewardship, is it any wonder that the Golden Age has not come about?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017), Vivisectus (01-04-2017)
  #49649  
Old 01-03-2017, 04:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMDCCLXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
It's quite the opposite, but in order to be able to analyze the text well past the lazy surface-level that Chuck gave it, you have to actually read it carefully. He did no such thing. Stop giving your crony such credit. He doesn't understand anything. He has no idea why man's will is not free and he keeps telling me to stop blaming him as if he thinks I'm going against the principles. This is the biggest giveaway of all.
More hubris. Only Peacegirl knows what the author meant as opposed to what he actually wrote. Fortunately we now have someone more humble and loyal to the text to look after it.
Indeed, Vivisectus, indeed. I had hoped that peacegirl would at least recognize that I am compelled to be the #TrueSteward of the Authentic Text of my own free will, of course. I can no more give up being the #TrueSteward than peacegirl could cease hawking her Corrupted Text online for lucre. When one observes how hatefully she blames me for my #TrueStewardship, is it any wonder that the Golden Age has not come about?
So sad. You are all false gods. I will let Chuck answer all questions regarding this discovery. As the Shark tank has taught us: I need to cut my losses. I'm out!
__________________
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


 ďAn eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #49650  
Old 01-03-2017, 04:59 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMXCVIII
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So sad. You are all false gods. I will let Chuck answer all questions regarding this discovery. As the Shark tank has taught us: I need to cut my losses. I'm out!
Of course I do not need your permission to answer questions.

But anyway, :wave: So long, peacegirl! See you in a few hours.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-04-2017), But (01-03-2017), The Lone Ranger (01-03-2017), The Man (01-03-2017)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 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 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.38654 seconds with 14 queries