A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He writes: If by not hurting others makes matters worse for you then you are compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils by hurting others. In other words, if you find yourself unable to get what you need, then you are compelled to blame and even hurt those who have it. Everywhere we look man is compelled to prefer the lesser of two evils, and under these conditions the basic principle can have no effect. Therefore, to solve our problem, since this is the kind of situation that exists in the economic world, it is necessary to remove the first blow.

I'm sorry if you are not satisfied with my answers. I suggest you read the book again, especially the chapter on economics.

Bull shit, every thing Lessans wrote about how people reacted, was based on his knowledge of how billiard balls bounce of of other balls and the cushions. Even taking into account the effects of English on the balls, could not encompass the variety of reactions of real people and their reactions to situations. Reading a fictional history of the Roman empire that was several hundred years after the fact, could not give him a realistic account of how people would react in some situations. His writings were the fanciful wishful thinking of a frustrated Al. siding salesman and nothing more. He would have been better off penning a comic book, with the Al. siding salesman as the alter ego of the hero of the comic.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I suggest you read the book again, especially the chapter on economics.

Yes, read the book again and over again till your eyes bleed and you have to agree, because you can't see anything else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

During the transition, the serious offenders would be in jail and this would be the last group to become citizens. If this law was unable to control their behavior, just as they do today, they would be considered mentally ill and confined to an institution, but it would be done with compassion. You are assuming that children brought up in this environment would still grow up to rape and kill. That's where you're mistaken. Believe it or not, many of the worst offenders would be compelled to change their ways because they could not find a way to excuse their behavior. They would be compelled to do whatever it took to stay away from a situation where they knew they would be tempted. Nothing in this world can make a person do to another what he doesn't want to do.

Bull Shit! And what makes you think that a pedophile doesn't want to do what he does to young people. A pedophile will have free reign in the new world, they will have no compulsion to act differently, and the new law (or lack of) will not prevent it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that we are always evaluating the potential consequences of our behavior indicates that it's still in the imagination stage regardless of what world we're talking about. This is all calculated in advance. Many offenders would rather take their chance getting caught and going to prison for the satisfaction of certain desires, but when the price is beyond their purchasing power, they will be forced to change their ways.

That's exactly what I addressed in my reply. So what the actual fuck was my supposedly false distinction, shithead?

[Florence Jellem]

Just 50 pages until the Page 2,000 party, boys!

I'll bring the sammiches.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science leaves the door open (or at least it's supposed to) for new insights. But this subject is completely closed off and the resentment that someone dares have a different take is tantamount to blasphemy. I realize that the evidence looks overwhelming. I still say that his claim needs to be thoroughly checked out, which it has not been. It probably won't in our lifetime.

What you are doing here is what Mormons call "shelving".

If reality somehow conflicts with what the church teaches you, then this means "something else must be going on" and you are encouraged to "put it on the shelf" and wait for God to make it clear later.

This allows people to ignore evidence against their beliefs.

[Vivisectus]

If you were taking this discovery seriously (which you're not), you may actually see why you could not take advantage of anyone.

So anyone can check if your book is correct by observing their own conscience. If this gives a different result, this does not count as a falsifying piece of evidence, they are just doing it wrong!

Only confirming evidence counts.

The only way is to test it, first on yourself. Try to knowingly hurt someone without the ability to justify it.

And when I report that I am indeed capable of cruelty, then I am just doing it wrong.

Of course it does. That's why he said the economic system is the most important chapter, for self-preservation justifies doing whatever it takes to survive.

No, that is an interpretation you require because of your own situation.

If it was that simple I would have done that already. You're sarcasm is making it hard for me to take your questions seriously. I hope you stop or we won't be able to communicate anymore.

You don't say! So it is in fact not so easy - because your book is unconvincing. It is unconvincing because it only makes claims, it needs something else to make us believe it could work. That something else is apparently nothing short of applying it on a pretty large scale by people who already believe it likely enough to work to apply it.

It is a bit of a catch 22.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly what I addressed in my reply. So what the actual fuck was my supposedly false distinction, shithead?

I was not referring to the pedophile imagining that he won't do something, and still doing it. I was talking about the fact that when we make a choice that we know is harmful, the knowledge of the consequences is an integral part of the decision making process. This is what we hope will deter a person from following through with his actions. But it's still in the imagination phase because it hasn't happened yet. There is no distinction between a person in this world considering the consequences, and someone in the new world considering the consequences. But the results will be drastically different.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not referring to the pedophile imagining that he won't do something, and still doing it.

And yet that example alone proves that your imagination-based testing is pathetically flawed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no distinction between a person in this world considering the consequences, and someone in the new world considering the consequences.

I never made any such distinction, dumbass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I bet you will.

If you've had enough YOU leave.

What fake distinction? Actually being in a situation is obviously different from merely imagining being in that situation. A person might believe they would be brave and do the right thing in an imagined conflict, and yet buckle and crumble under pressure when actually placed in that situation for real. That one must imagine future consequences in both cases is irrelevant to this obvious and massive difference.

You are assuming that a pedophile would not be able to control himself and would go on hurting children without a care. You are assuming that all pedophiles would have a field day. You are assuming that all criminals would have a field day doing whatever they want and getting away with it. You are wrong. You are also refusing to take into consideration that there is a transitional period into the new world. You are being so short-sighted you are failing to see the entire picture. What a great investigator you are! There may be some mental illness as a carry over and if these individuals would cause harm to anyone, we would know they are mentally ill and they would need to be taken off the streets just like they are today. This has nothing to do with the changes that are going to unfold, preventing the causes that have led to mental illness in the first place.

Anytime a citizen
would hurt somebody physically, or give a command to hurt others, we
would know immediately that he is sick and would commit him to a
hospital until he is able to resume his normal life. We would do the
same if a dog was to bite somebody — take him off the streets.
However, even though it is very unlikely that a citizen would become
mentally sick under the changed conditions, we would be prepared for
any eventuality. Should this be the case his family would have to
assume responsibility for him, but no one would blame or punish him
in any way even if it was necessary to confine him to an institution for
treatment. It is important to remember that when all the sources of
hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be
virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that a pedophile would not be able to control himself and would go on hurting children without a care.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm simply asking whether you would trust the sex offender's imagination in the same way that you trust your own for testing Lessans' ideas. And as per usual you are avoiding the question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are also refusing to take into consideration that there is a transition into the new world.

Nope. Wrong again, dumbass. My question has NOTHING to do with your new world or changed conditions. It is a question purely about the here and now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet that example alone proves that your imagination-based testing is pathetically flawed.

I never made any such distinction, dumbass.

Yes you did!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not assuming any such thing. I'm simply asking whether you would trust the sex offender's imagination in the same way that you trust your own for testing Lessans' ideas. And as per usual you are avoiding the question.

Nope. Wrong again, dumbass. My question has NOTHING to do with your new world or changed conditions. It is a question purely about the here and now.

You're just in denial Spacemonkey.

[Spacemonkey]

Maybe you could pull your head out of your ass and address my actual posts?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe you could pull your head out of your ass and address my actual posts?

I have answered your questions but you don't like my answers. I can't help that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just a fucktard Spacemonkey, and I've had enough of you for one day.

Wow, that lasted for a whole 26 minutes. A new record?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know why I won't address your actual posts?

Why yes, actually I do. It is because you can't, but are too dishonest to admit it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey, Peacegirl Fucktard (you're welcome), have you worked out coherent answers yet to any of the following?

How did you go about distinguishing between Lessans' errors that needed removing from the text, and his 100% accurate astute observations that couldn't possibly be wrong?

How will the changed conditions prevent harms resulting from the unaddressed justification of rational self-interest?

What traveling have your magical photons (at the retina at 12:00) done, and when could they ever have been located at the Sun, where you claim they came from?

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

How did you go about distinguishing between Lessans' errors that needed removing from the text, and his 100% accurate astute observations that couldn't possibly be wrong?

That is a pretty good question. Since we do not have any facts that we can measure anything against and have to trust that the "observations" in the book are "astute", how can we be sure what parts are not as important and which ones are?

That is why I said earlier - in Peacegirls book we have to assume there are TWO "astute observers". We have to take on trust that the original author could see hidden truths, and we then have to take on trust that Peacegirl could spot which pieces were important and which were not... without having any factual basis to check if she is right or not.

On the other hand ChuckF, as a scholar of the original material rather than PG's personal interpretation, seeks to find out what facts underpinned some of the claims made.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime a citizen
would hurt somebody physically, or give a command to hurt others, we
would know immediately that he is sick and would commit him to a
hospital until he is able to resume his normal life.

However, even though it is very unlikely that a citizen would become
mentally sick under the changed conditions, we would be prepared for
any eventuality. Should this be the case his family would have to
assume responsibility for him, but no one would blame or punish him
in any way even if it was necessary to confine him to an institution for
treatment. It is important to remember that when all the sources of
hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be
virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

So "Sick" is anything that doesn't conform to Lessans ideas of what "normal" is. We already have people like that in power, and it isn't working, they are politicians who want to control everything we do from cradle to grave, and psychologists who claim that a child, and then an adult should never experience failure because it might damage their precious little psyche. These ideas have been tried, are being tried, and they don't work. Some are trying to force the ideas down everyone's throat, and it isn't working.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why yes, actually I do. It is because you can't, but are too dishonest to admit it.

I have answered your posts over and over again.

[The Lone Ranger]

How dare we ask relevant questions and muddle the discussion with inconvenient facts?!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How dare we ask relevant questions and muddle the discussion with inconvenient facts?!

What inconvenient facts Lone Ranger? I have learned a lot from this thread but not what I expected. I can see how people here have set themselves up as little gods who guard the gates of truth. No one dare enter without their permission. I see how these same people have painted a false picture of this man without a thought as to the damage they're causing, just so they can get a good laugh. I see how easy it is to negatively influence public perception to achieve the desired end. I can see how group think is biased in that its only mission is to protect the status quo without having a sincere investigative bone in their body. I can see why genuine discoveries were often ignored and why the discoverers were forced to receive posthumous recognition. I can see how impossible it was for me to think I could share a genuine discovery in a venue such as this. I was doomed from the very beginning. I forgive myself for ever getting involved.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just more bullshit. Sad but true. You little dipshits (you have all hurt me so bad by your name calling without any real justification, I don't care what I say in retaliation since I am justified in my anger.). It's so unfortunate that his claim regarding the eyes has turned you all into nut cases thinking you know more than Lessans did. What complete and total bunch of crap. You're all arrogant fools, but you don't see it because you're you're blind. Nothing I say is going to matter which is why I have to leave.

peacegirl, there are many things you could say that would advance a thorough scientific investigation of the author's claims - the same type of thorough investigation for which the author expressed such a fervent desire, in the Authentic Text as written by the author and published in his lifetime. For example, you could facilitate that thorough scientific investigation by elucidating the factual basis for such claims, and identifying the data set(s) that support them. I've tried to undertake that discussion by inviting you to share the factual basis and supportive data for the author's claim (censored by you in your Corrupted Text) that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love." Regrettably, you have expressed no interest in advancing a scientific investigation of the author's claim.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl (quoting Lessans)

It is important to remember that when all the sources of
hurt in society are permanently removed, mental illness will be
virtually wiped from the face of the earth.

This is one my favorite things that Lessans and peacegirl do, asking us to remember something as though it were an established fact when it is actually one of the claims that has not yet been demonstrated to be true.