A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Coming from you, this may be the single most dishonest and hypocritical thing ever written.

After all, literally every single one of the millions of experiments that have been done have flatly disproved Lessans' claims regarding sight. In your more lucid moments, you even acknowledge this.

And how do you respond? You ignore all of the relevant evidence and claim -- based on no evidence whatsoever, just absolute faith that Lessans must have been correct, evidence be damned -- that somehow, at some unspecified time in the future, some unspecified experiments will be performed which -- somehow -- completely disprove just-about everything we thought we knew about neural anatomy, visual anatomy and physiology, cosmology, General Physiology, ethology, and astronomy. Not to mention disproving the principles upon which such well-established technologies as LIDAR and GPS function, not to mention our ability to successfully land space probes on distant planets.


You bleat about how "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" [incidentally, in the original, it's "evidence," not "proof"] while providing no evidence at all in favor of Lessans' claims and ignoring the mountains of evidence against them.

So you're either deliberately lying or you're an idiot. Either way, you're being incredibly hypocritical and dishonest.

But then, you've demonstrated ad nauseum that this is only to be expected from you.

Oh stop it Lone Ranger. I have offered his observations to you, but they fall on deaf ears because you won't or can't believe that science's proof (evidence can be wrong) is lacking. You're the one in denial. Call me names if it makes you feel better, but it makes no difference. The truth is the truth is the truth, and one day the truth will be known. I don't understand the resentment that people feel just because Lessans saw things differently (thank goodness there are laws that protect his writings), or the lack of respect for someone that has only done good, which you will realize one day.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc, you're missing the entire point just like LadyShea. You are out to get me even if it's unjustified, and I am not going to take the bait.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then what was the point? other than you went to a doctor, and then based on a TV ad, refused to take your medicine? You do understand that most medication is taken for a short time and then stopped, before it causes damage?

That's not true. The goal of pharmaceutical companies is to keep people on medicine long term. That's how they make their money. Why do you think doctors are given samples to hand out to their patients? The pharmaceutical reps know that once patients are put on these meds, they will need to continue on the same regimen after the samples run out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are lost Spacemonkey. And you believe you have the last word on this? You're in a dreamworld of your own making.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The above is not a rational response. It is just another weasel. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

You are wrong to the point where I feel nauseous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fair enough. Then the proposition of the word "determinism" as it is presently theorized is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are saying that determinism is false. So what? How does this necessitate switching to a new definition by which it can be said to be true? Holocaust denialism is also false, but we don't need to redefine it into something that is true.

Huh? I am not saying determinism is false. I am saying the thesis or proposition that is now standard is causing the problem because it is defining determinism as a causal event, when nothing causes anything. Previous events do not cause us to act a certain way. All they do is create conditions that arouse desire to move in a certain direction for greater satisfaction. Because you don't get this at all, or you have a block against it (because I know you have the capacity), you are in defense of your logic, which is faulty when it comes to determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you! That's what I meant and you helped clarify it.

I get it!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe you do, but I'm not holding my breath. Even if you understand now, you will have forgotten about this in a matter of days if not hours.

That was not called for. I guess you can't rid yourself of a schoolboy mentality that quickly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would not think it's stupid if you understood what he was saying, but you really don't. There is a subtle but important difference, and if you're so sure there isn't any, and it's stupid, you won't be open enough to see that difference. Do you see the problem? That's why you can't say "my genes caused me to kill that person" or my upbringing caused me to commit that crime" because nothing in this world can cause you to do something you don't want to do. This is what turned philosophers off to determinism because people could excuse themselves by saying, "My will is not free". "I couldn't help but blow up those people who didn't believe in my God." I was caused to do what I did even though I didn't want to", allowing them to shift their responsibility.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but I do understand what he is saying, and I still think it is stupid. It is a trivial tautology that one always does what one considers most preferable out of one's available alternatives. One can still be blameworthy for choosing a morally sub-optimal option that they should not have preferred.

There are no should's Spacemonkey. You are failing to understand anything at all. You do not understand the two-sided equation and that is the core of this knowledge. If you have any inkling that there could be something to this, then join the new forum that I am working hard to produce. But there you will need to be on good behavior. That doesn't mean that "good behavior" is blind acceptance. The moderators would never ban people for having questions, but they will not tolerate the vindictiveness and the outright sneering that people are showing in this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is it a tautology if it is a necessary truth?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it will be true in virtue of meaning rather than as a matter of how the world happens to be.

I am trying to show you that it is not just true by virtue of meaning. Yes, it appears that it conflicts with how the world actually is, but that's because this knowledge has not been applied. How can we see that it is true without applying it on a global scale once these principles are deemed by scientists as undeniable?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again speaking for other people. Do you know everyone that is lurking? Do you think that maybe they see some validity in some of the things I share?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep imagining there to be lurkers with completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts here? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

There are lurkers here because this is an open forum that they happened to join. Just because they are lurking does not mean they are in total agreement that Lessans is automatically wrong because of you and LadyShea, NA, and thedoc's objections.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you here? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're nuts? Doesn't this strike you as rather odd behavior?

Why does it matter why I'm here? Why are you here? Obviously, you're compelled to be here rather than any other thread on the internet. Doesn't that seem rather odd considering that you are so disbelieving in this discovery?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh stop it Lone Ranger. I have offered his observations to you, but they fall on deaf ears because you won't or can't believe that science's proof (evidence can be wrong) is lacking. You're the one in denial. Call me names if it makes you feel better, but it makes no difference. The truth is the truth is the truth, and one day the truth will be known. I don't understand the resentment that people feel just because Lessans saw things differently (thank goodness there are laws that protect his writings), or the lack of respect for someone that has only done good, which you will realize one day.

Wow pure denial of reality here. "Facts and evidence are wrong because my father told me something different."

[LadyShea]

it is defining determinism as a causal event, when nothing causes anything. Previous events do not cause us to act a certain way. All they do is create conditions that arouse desire to move in a certain direction for greater satisfaction.

That is exactly the same as causal, unless you are redefining cause to mean something it doesn't

Created conditions, desires, and satisfaction all arise from antecedent states of being. In other words, all are caused.

[LadyShea]

There are lurkers here because this is an open forum that they happened to join. Just because they are lurking does not mean they are in total agreement that Lessans is automatically wrong because of you and LadyShea, NA, and thedoc's objections.

That doesn't mean they read this thread. A lurker is someone who reads or follows without commenting. You have no way of knowing if anyone is reading this thread other than those who are participating in it. And, if there are lurkers, and they are interested in Lessans ideas, why aren't they participating? And if they agree that Lessans is wrong, why would it not be their own conclusion...why would it be "because" of us?

That being said, I know this thread gets hit by spiders a lot, because it is active.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So just to be clear, this here statement was just histrionic horseshit?

I wonder how many times you've told this bullshit story...probably all breathless and self congratulatory with how you escaped almost certain death because of your skepticism!

Thank you for offering the perfect example of an attack that has no basis at all. This is what I call deceptive. My bullshit story is your way of being right. I never used those terms at all, but in order for you to be right, you have to come on strong with words that sound impressive. Bullshit story sounds impressive but these are empty words LadyShea. You are not the end all except in this forum maybe. How unfortunate that people believe the loudest voice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand, that's just the point. You are using a definition of determinism that isn't a part of his definition

Where did I mention anything about definitions of determinism, and what makes you think my working definition is the problem?

, which is more accurate in the sense that there are no antecedent events that cause us to act in a certain way,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've never said that was the definition of determinism I "use" or am using.

You didn't mention it but that IS THE STANDARD DEFINITION.

That's why the "satisfaction principle" is a more accurate definition if accuracy means anything at all, especially when one is using a definition as a first premise. You don't understand this enough to even get an idea of what I mean by this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The satisfaction principle is tautological and fallacious and you've been completely unable to demonstrate it is "accurate"

Says LadyShea. If LadyShea says it's false, it must be false. That is a tautology if I ever heard one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That being said, even if some form/version/concept of determinism could be proved true (it cannot be proven true), there's no basis for accepting that the reasoning Lessans gave, regarding his greater satisfaction principle, is accurate.

You just contradicted yourself. You said if some form/version/concept of determinism could be proved true, and then in the next breath you said it can't be proven true..

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no contradiction. I said "if it could..." indicating I was presenting a hypothetical. The parenthetical was my statement on the reality, which is that "determinism" is not really something that can be proven or disproven

Your phony answer is proof enough of your inadequacy as a true thinker. Let it go LadyShea. I am not going to engage with ignorance.

The reasons Lessans gave are absolutely undeniable, whether you are capable of seeing this or not. He was not dependent on you or anyone else to know that his observations were spot on. Anyway, continually telling me that these are mere assertions show me how little you know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith statements and assertions, as always

According to whom? You? You actually think you hold truth in hand? You are in a world of your own that gets a thanks in the subject bar. What the hell do these thanks even mean except to goad you on in your false thinking. This is all about applause, not truth. That's why my presentation would never be met with interest, let alone carefully studied.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That makes no difference: according to your principle, it would be dandy for me to go hang-gliding when my child very ill and needs my attention.

I swear you didn't read a thing in this book. You have no conception whatsoever. You can do whatever you want in the new world, but that is only because the conditions will be such that no one would ever desire to hurt others in any way, shape, or form. To become a citizen you have to sign an agreement not to tell others what to do. That rules out dictatorship.

I never said that. I think you are arguing against yourself now, which is rather funny

Wrong. There is no ought. The desire that makes no demands has the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean that a person will never desire to do things with his wife. This only comes into play when there is a conflict between desires. If he wants to help his wife cook, then there is no conflict, and there is no reason he would not want to, especially if she stops trying to get him to feel guilty over what he has every right to do, if he wants to.

But it is a "principle" that is there to help you decide which desire, in case of conflict, ought to get right of way.

Not at all. She has the right to ask anything she wants, but he has the right-of-way to refuse if he doesn't want to do what she wants done. Once again, that does not mean he won't help her if she needs him, but she would not take advantage of his generosity, where in this world people expect others to give up their desire because they consider their wants and desires as more important. This is pure and simple selfishness.

Again - this clearly shows we are talking about what you can call an ethical guideline, a rule or a principle. My contention is and has been that it is the circumstances and the nature of the desire that decide which should get "right-of-way", not whether or not it requires another to comply who may or may not share that desire. Your "principle" very quickly becomes silly unless you keep your examples extremely mundane, and pretend that the two people involved share no history and are devoid of personalities.

Everyone is compelled to do what he thinks is best for himself. When it is demonstrated that insisting that your partner give up what he wants to do for your benefit, but not his, it will certainly not serve you if what you want is a happy marriage. You can do whatever you want, but how can you want to do what is going to hurt your relationship in the end? There is going to be no one sitting in judgment.

That is neither here nor there: the book still states that such behaviour is bad as it leads to bad things.

She already knows he would help her even if it meant giving up something he was looking forward to. But she would never dream of making him sacrifice his desire, or making him feel guilty (which would display her selfishness, not her love, and would lessen the very security she needs for her own happiness) unless it was a true emergency, or she felt that it would give him more pleasure in cooking with her than going to the movies.

More hand-waving: you claim that it simply would not happen in the Brave New World. But that is not what we are discussing: we are arguing about the principle, and if it is sound or not. Since you just admitted that extraordinary circumstances are required to keep the principle from leading to absurdities, it seems that you agree with me that it is not.

Who ever said it depends on the number of people involved? That never entered into the conversation, so why are you bringing something up that has no relevance? I'm sorry but I can't even get to the second part of your question.

You said that it depends on the number of people involved. I pointed this out, but you seem to have removed that part.

Not at all Vivisectus. It is you who is conjuring up all kinds of ridiculous examples.

The examples are far from ridiculous: having a wife who wishes you to attend the birth of your child, while somewhere deep down the husband wishes he was far away on a golf-course is not ridiculous. I bet it happens all the time. It is not my personal preference, but I have heard it expressed by quite a few people.

What is ridiculous is the "principle": it leads to ridiculous outcomes.

He has the right-of-way not to go to the birth of his child, and she wouldn't blame him if he didn't support her. This is such a ridiculous example because he knows it is his child also, and a very special time of their lives. Do you actually think he would be showing his love by ignoring this special event and going to play golf? That does not mean he doesn't have the right-of-way, but you are missing the fact that he wants to show his love for his wife in every way possible because this is the only way to keep her in love with him. He would want to be at the birth of his child, especially knowing that he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Wild horses couldn't drag him away.

So you agree that this would be considered ethical behaviour according to your guideline, and then make up a whole bunch of extraordinary circumstances to show that it could not happen.

But that does not change the fact that the principle itself is flawed: according to it, behaviour that is clearly not very nice is perfectly OK.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, we have seen that it would only work if people would simply no longer want to do any unethical thing at all, but we are discussing here a rule that is to be used in determining what is ethical and what is not! Again, Lessans leads you in circles.

Circles? There are no circles except in your own mix upped mind. No one is telling you what is ethical. That is the entire foundation of this book. There are no TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, there are very clear circles here. In the book, some "rules of the road" are proposed regarding what is OK and what is not OK to require of a person. However, as I pointed out, these rules lead to idiotic outcomes. Your response to that was "Yes but that cannot happen because even if it could not be required of a person they would still not want to do them" - but then why have rules of the road at all? The very reason to have them is to see if the desire to go see a movie - or attend the birth - should get right of way!

The right-of-way system is a foolproof system

We have clearly seen this is not the case. You can follow the "system" (it is a system now is it?) and still do some really unpleasant things. Pretty much the opposite of foolproof.

because it mathematically identifies who must yield IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.This does not mean that there is always going to be conflicts of desire. In a situation as important as a birth, his desire would be to stay with his wife and support her.

...and here you again say that people would not NEED this guideline because they would never want to go against another person desire anyway...

If he chose to play gold, he would have the right-of-way, but you are presupposing that this outcome would necessarily come true unless the situation was forced on him. You are the one that is turning this into something it is not.

Strawman: I am not supposing anything of the kind. I am merely saying that the "principle" is flawed because patently unethical behaviour is possible while following the principle perfectly. And again your point is: "Ah sure but it would never happen because no-one would want to do mean things anymore". But as I have pointed out endlessly, that is neither here nor there.

The only thing that this prevents is selfishness, which is not healthy for a marriage. You want to believe I am reasoning in circles because you want Lessans to be wrong, but he is not wrong.

Like the book, you claim this but fail to substantiate it.

It is a guiding principle that comes from the knowledge that man's will is not free. As I said before, if you don't like this principle, don't apply it. Although to become a citizen you must agree that you will not tell others what to do, or blame them in any way. If you don't like the agreement, you don't have to become a citizen. There is no force whatsoever.

Again, I see no counter-argument here, just the statement that I o not have to accept it. I am aware of that, and I don't, but that is not relevant to the discussion about the soundness or unsoundness of the principle.

This is an undeniable principle

Obviously it is far from that: it is very easy to demonstrate that it only works in very specific circumstances and only if the desires are of a simple, non-threatening, and extremely mundane kind. It is useless for determining anything more important than whose turn it is to do the dishes this evening.

based on the knowledge that man's will is not free. It demonstrates who has the right-of-way when it comes down to a major conflict.

So you agree that my desire to play fantasy baseball gets right of way over my childs need to have me there when she is very ill? That is some utopia you have dreamed up there!

It stops the person who does not have the right-of-way from insisting that the person who does, from making him feel guilty or trying to get back at him.

How strange that the ill child and my poor wife, having to go through such challenging times unaided, would consider that I did what is only right.

This has gone on since time immemorial. We are constantly being made to feel guilty over not satisfying someone's selfish desire because that would require us giving up our desire not to do it (for whatever reason).

And in stead you advocate a principle that excuses horrific behaviour, by ignoring the fact that not all desires are equally important. My desire to keep breathing is not of the same importance as your desire not to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. And yet, your principle states that I should not expect you to resuscitate me if you do not feel like it.

Some "undeniable principle".

This doesn't create the desire to never help someone. It actually stimulates the desire because it is not coming from fear of retaliation or a feeling of guilt (which would be misplaced).

This is one of the things that are claimed in the book, but never proven or demonstrated.[/QUOTE]

I just spent 45 minutes answering this post and it disappeared into the ether. I'm not answering it again. All I will say to you Vivisectus is that this principle does not give license to be inhumane. You are presuming that this would encourage people to lose their humanity. If you were not breathing, people would jump at the chance of saving you unless they had a reason not to. This new world brings out people's decency and caring; all the things that make life worth living. They will have their conscience to guide them, but no one will stand in judgment. Paradoxically, this non-judgmental world will only create a desire in people to help others when they really are in need.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for offering the perfect example of an attack that has no basis at all. This is what I call deceptive. My bullshit story is your way of being right. I never used those terms at all, but in order for you to be right, you have to come on strong with words that sound impressive. Bullshit story sounds impressive but these are empty words LadyShea. You are not the end all except in this forum maybe. How unfortunate that people believe the loudest voice.

LOL, you are the one who lied by relaying an anecdote that is not a true accounting of events, why don't you take responsibility for your own statements?

As for your assumption that people believe the loudest voice, you are insulting your precious lurkers' intelligence now, by calling them sheep?

[LadyShea]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I mention anything about definitions of determinism, and what makes you think my working definition is the problem?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't mention it but that IS THE STANDARD DEFINITION.

You are assuming I use the standard definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Says LadyShea.

Yep, says me, for the reasons I have stated multiple times. Feel free to refute my well supported assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your phony answer is proof enough of your inadequacy as a true thinker. Let it go LadyShea. I am not going to engage with ignorance.

Phony answer? I used the word if originally because I was presenting a hypothetical...that's what the word if means.

And you are still engaging me, ignorant though you think I am. You are still here at , though you consider us all ignorant. Why?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to whom? You?

Yes, according to me. You have presented no evidence or convincing reasoning to label Lessans ideas as "undeniable" or spot on, therefore they are faith statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You actually think you hold truth in hand?

I believe my assessments are correct, yes, otherwise I wouldn't state them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are in a world of your own that gets a thanks in the subject bar. What the hell do these thanks even mean except to goad you on in your false thinking.

Thanks indicate that the people that thank me appreciate my contribution for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all about applause, not truth. That's why my presentation would never be met with interest, let alone carefully studied.

If that ridiculous assessment helps you sleep at night, have at it. It makes your continued presence here appear to be lunacy, but whatever.

[Ymir's blood]

Did someone mention being hit by spiders?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've told you before that your posts are way too long and don't give others a chance.

You are ridiculous. Chance to do what? To post? Everyone has equal "chance" to post, regardless of the length of others' posts because the number of posts is not limited.

I will answer you but not every single refutation. Please condense your posts or they will not be fully answered Vivisectus.

Do what you want, respond how you want. If you want to weasel and not respond to everything, then just do so. Why are you proactively blaming Vivisectus for your weaseling with some bullshit about his posts being too long?

[Vivisectus]

I see you have hit stage 3: when all other attempts to deny the objection to the book have failed, find some other reason not to respond, and then pretend later that you successfully refuted the objection, or better still, that you never heard any objection at all.

Perhaps this subject is best discussed in your personal forum for people who agree with Lessans?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have offered his observations to you, but they fall on deaf ears because you won't or can't believe that science's proof (evidence can be wrong) is lacking.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence that any of these so-called "observations" ever occurred. What was observed? When did these observations take place? Under what conditions? How did he control for bias? Why haven't these "observations" been documented? Why haven't they been replicated? How were the data analyzed?

What evidence do we have other than your say-so that these "observations" even took place?


You expect us to take this on pure faith. Yet you dishonestly and hypocritically insist that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".


You've provided zero evidence for Lessans' claims regarding vision. When it's pointed out to you that all of the relevant anatomical and physiological knowledge we possess flatly rules out Lessans' claims, you insist that you have faith that somehow, someday, further experimentation will somehow disprove everything we know about visual anatomy and physiology, and somehow vindicate Lessans.

You've provided zero evidence to disprove the myriad demonstrations that "real-time seeing" not only doesn't occur, but cannot occur. You just bleat that "maybe Einstein was wrong" and "maybe we need to re-calculate the speed of light" and again insist that you have faith that someday, somehow, experiments will be done which somehow disprove pretty-much all of modern physics and also vindicate Lessans' claims.

You've provided zero explanation for how GPS systems could work, even though they wouldn't if Lessans' claims were true.

You've provided zero explanation for how LIDAR could function, even though it wouldn't if Lessans' claims were true.

You've provided zero explanation for the fact that we detect the neutrinos and the light from distant supernova explosions nearly simultaneously, even though this could not happen if Lessans' claims were true.

You've provided zero explanation for the observed fact that we see the timing of planetary eclipses delayed by a factor that exactly corresponds with the time it takes for light to travel between that planet and the Earth -- even though this could not happen if Lessans' claims were true.

You've provided zero explanation for the observed fact that even though NASA factors in the discrepancy between where a planet actually is and where it appears to be due to the delay in when we see it because of the limited speed of light, our space probes nonetheless manage to land on distant planets, even though they would miss the planets entirely if Lessans' claims were true.

You've provided exactly zero explanation for the rotating slit experiments which demonstrate that we see in delayed time, even though these experiments would not work if Lessans' claims were true.


And yet you have the unmitigated gall to bleat about how "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"! [And once again, you're demonstrating that you have no idea what the word "proof" actually means.] This despite the fact that you've offered no evidence whatsoever for your claims -- instead, you simply expect us to accept Lessans' "observations" merely on faith alone, and to ignore the literal mountains of evidence which flatly contradict them.

We can go on and on. The point is, when you say that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," you're being incredibly dishonest and hypocritical. Indeed, when it's coming from you, I don't hesitate to say that it's the single most hypocritical thing I've ever read. And that's saying something.

Your only saving grace is that -- to all appearances -- you really are incapable of understanding why your behavior is so dishonest and hypocritical.




I'm a scientist. Show me the evidence. If it disproves what we had previously thought we knew -- GREAT!!!! That's how science progresses. Any real scientist is thrilled to encounter evidence that disproves formerly-accepted notions. That's how you get famous in science.

I guarantee you that if you can provide me with actual evidence that we see in "real time," it will be published and thoroughly examined. Any scientist worth his salt would practically kill for such a once-in-a-century opportunity, since it would instantly make him or her the biggest thing since Newton.

But don't lie and pretend that no one is giving your nonexistent "evidence" a fair appraisal.

[davidm]

”My wallet by itself is THIS fat with roll after roll of hundred dollar bills,” Mitt Romney gloated Sunday during a campaign stop at a Philadelphia homeless shelter. “Ha, ha!”

POLITICS AND CULTURE
Mitt Romney Converts From Mormonism to Lessanology in Peacegirl's Fantasy World

FREETHOUGT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) – Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, will convert from Mormonism to the new religion of Lessanology in peacegirl's mind, informed sources said Monday.

“Mitt just feels he needs to do something to shake up the dynamics of this campaign,” said a top aide, who asked to remain anonymous. “And Lessanology is just so damned popular, with millions converting to it every day in peacegirl’s fantasy world, that Mitt just felt he needed to ride that bandwagon to a fantasy White House.”

Lessanology was founded by the late Baltimore-area kook Seymour Lessans, a self-uneducated seventh-grade dropout who was also a longtime aluminum sidings salesman and pool hustler. His book, the Decline and Fall of All Evil, is a runaway worldwide best-seller in peacegirl’s dreams.

Romney, aides said, was particularly attracted to Lessans’ famous “two-sided equation.”

“Mitt just feels that under the equation, rich people like him get big tax cuts while everyone else is left holding the bag. That’s a two-sided equation he can really get behind.”

Another lure of Lessanology for Romney, informed sources said, was the religion’s “translucent sex robes” worn by men, so reminiscent of the magic underpants of Mormons. Finally, these sources said, Romney, who is trying to con people into voting for him, felt a kinship with Lessanology in that both it and Mormonism were founded by con men.

“Let’s face it,” the anonymous aide said. “If tomorrow everyone became an atheist, so would Mitt. He aims to please, at least on the record."

In other news from peacegirl's dream world, NASA announced Monday that from now on, it would pretend that we see in real time and calculate spacecraft trajectory to Mars and other worlds accordingly. All the craft will miss their targets, NASA said, wasting untold billions of dollars and destroying the space program.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Wow pure denial of reality here. "Facts and evidence are wrong because my father told me something different."

That is your mantra specious_reasons, which is exactly why I knew that telling people up front I was his daughter would be disastrous. If you can't get beyond the fact that my being his daughter has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his discovery, then there's no reason for you to be here or to try to understanding his writings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see you have hit stage 3: when all other attempts to deny the objection to the book have failed, find some other reason not to respond, and then pretend later that you successfully refuted the objection, or better still, that you never heard any objection at all.

Perhaps this subject is best discussed in your personal forum for people who agree with Lessans?

I have responded to you continually, so for you to say that I have not refuted your objections is based on false pretense. Nothing you have brought up does anything to weaken his position. As I have said, and continue to maintain, your goal is to make Lessans wrong at all costs. You will continue to say he is wrong because you are now committed to your position in order to save face. Therefore, it's no surprise that the more I claim that he isn't wrong (unless science confirms that this knowledge is accurate, in which case you will have no choice but to concede, albeit with great reluctance), the nastier you, and others like you, will get.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are ridiculous. Chance to do what? To post? Everyone has equal "chance" to post, regardless of the length of others' posts because the number of posts is not limited.

Do what you want, respond how you want. If you want to weasel and not respond to everything, then just do so. Why are you proactively blaming Vivisectus for your weaseling with some bullshit about his posts being too long?

I am not blaming him. I have asked him numerous times not to make such long posts because I don't cut out parts just to make my post sound better. I try to keep every post intact, and it's way too long for me to respond to. He could condense it to make it easier on me. That's all I'm asking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That makes no difference: according to your principle, it would be dandy for me to go hang-gliding when my child very ill and needs my attention.

This shows me you know nothing about this knowledge. You are forgetting how conscience goes up, not down, and when no one is judging your behavior, that does not mean you become irresponsible. The truth is you will become more responsible for your actions. If your child needed you, you would be there, even though you may decide to go hand gliding in order have a break. But you would also never stay out where your child would suffer because of your negligence.

Again, this is no rule. You are FREE AS A BIRD to do whatever you want once you become a citizen. If you want to be a dictator, this is your chance.

I swear you didn't read a thing in this book. You have no conception whatsoever. You can do whatever you want in the new world, but that is only because the conditions will be such that no one would ever desire to hurt others in any way, shape, or form. To become a citizen you have to sign an agreement not to tell others what to do. That rules out dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I never said that. I think you are arguing against yourself now, which is rather funny

What a simple cop-out. Just tell me I am arguing against myself, and I should accept that as a reasonable answer.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As I already explained, that has nothing to do with it. It is an ethical rule: if someone wants to go to the movies, that desire ought to get right-of-way over anothers desire for that person to stay and help cook dinner.

Wrong. There is no ought. The desire that makes no demands has the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean that a person will never desire to do things with his wife. This only comes into play when there is a conflict between desires. If he wants to help his wife cook, then there is no conflict, and there is no reason he would not want to, especially if she stops trying to get him to feel guilty over what he has every right to do, if he wants to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But it is a "principle" that is there to help you decide which desire, in case of conflict, ought to get right of way.

No, this is not about oughts. This is about an undeniable way of knowing who gets the right-of-way scientifically. That doesn't mean you have to listen to it. If you want to take advantage no one is going to stop you from insisting that your wants are more important than your spouse's.

Not at all. She has the right to ask anything she wants, but he has the right-of-way to refuse if he doesn't want to do what she wants done. Once again, that does not mean he won't help her if she needs him, but she would not take advantage of his generosity, where in this world people expect others to give up their desire because they consider their wants and desires as more important. This is pure and simple selfishness.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - this clearly shows we are talking about what you can call an ethical guideline, a rule or a principle. My contention is and has been that it is the circumstances and the nature of the desire that decide which should get "right-of-way", not whether or not it requires another to comply who may or may not share that desire. Your "principle" very quickly becomes silly unless you keep your examples extremely mundane, and pretend that the two people involved share no history and are devoid of personalities.

Obviously, you understood nothing I wrote in the last post, which is typical of your reponses. It's like I am speaking to a wall.

Everyone is compelled to do what he thinks is best for himself. When it is demonstrated that insisting that your partner give up what he wants to do for your benefit, but not his, it will certainly not serve you if what you want is a happy marriage. You can do whatever you want, but how can you want to do what is going to hurt your relationship in the end? There is going to be no one sitting in judgment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is neither here nor there: the book still states that such behaviour is bad as it leads to bad things.

If you think that being selfish leads to good things, then be selfish. If you think that ruining your marriage, or causing resentment, is a good thing, then keep justifying your selfishness by insisting that others yield to your desires, even at the sacrifice of theirs.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On top of that, it is easy to imagine a situation where she would be justified in demanding me to stay home and help her cook dinner. As I said, whether it is morally ok for a person to leave and pursue personal pleasure does not depend on the number of people involved, it depends on the situation.

She already knows he would help her even if it meant giving up something he was looking forward to. But she would never dream of making him sacrifice his desire, or making him feel guilty (which would display her selfishness, not her love, and would lessen the very security she needs for her own happiness) unless it was a true emergency, or she felt that it would give him more pleasure in cooking with her than going to the movies.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More hand-waving: you claim that it simply would not happen in the Brave New World. But that is not what we are discussing: we are arguing about the principle, and if it is sound or not. Since you just admitted that extraordinary circumstances are required to keep the principle from leading to absurdities, it seems that you agree with me that it is not.

You either didn't read my last post, or hand-waved it away in order to come back with the same old refrain over and over again. This in no way leads to an absurdity because each person, when given the freedom to make his own choice in these matters, will never fail to do the "right" thing by their family whom they love.

Who ever said it depends on the number of people involved? That never entered into the conversation, so why are you bringing something up that has no relevance? I'm sorry but I can't even get to the second part of your question.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

You said that it depends on the number of people involved. I pointed this out, but you seem to have removed that part.

I never said that, or if I said something to that effect, it was misconstrued. You could find the original post if you wanted to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point is that the rule that is proposed is poorly thought out and leads to ridiculous situations that no-one would consider ethical.

Not at all Vivisectus. It is you who is conjuring up all kinds of ridiculous examples.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The examples are far from ridiculous: having a wife who wishes you to attend the birth of your child, while somewhere deep down the husband wishes he was far away on a golf-course is not ridiculous. I bet it happens all the time. It is not my personal preference, but I have heard it expressed by quite a few people.

What is ridiculous is the "principle": it leads to ridiculous outcomes.

Wishing to play golf and desiring to stay with one's wife while giving childbirth can both be desired choices, but most husbands, if not all, would know that childbirth comes a few times in a lifetime, and would want to show their love by being there and supporting their wives. The irony is that no one can force someone to do anything they don't want to do, and hacking someone by making them feel guilty would only serve, in the long run, to push them away, whereas leaving someone alone to make up their own decision without blame or condemnation (because they have the right of way to choose that which is best for themselves) would end up desiring to choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to be the choice that is most loving for all involved.
-------------------
to be cont...(this is way too long)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So just to be clear, this here statement was just histrionic horseshit?

I wonder how many times you've told this bullshit story...probably all breathless and self congratulatory with how you escaped almost certain death because of your skepticism!

I am being honest when I say that I am a skeptical individual, which has kept me in good stead through the years. I am not being histrionic or trying to be self-congratulatory, but I did avoid a lot of pitfalls because of this position. I am grateful to my father for teaching me to take everything with a grain of salt.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am grateful to my father for teaching me to take everything with a grain of salt.

Everything? Really?

So I take it you demanded that your father provide you with solid, ironclad, irrefutable evidence regarding his truly extraordinary claims of how we see -- rather than simply accepting those extraordinary claims on blind faith, that is.

So why haven't you provided this revolutionary and paradigm-changing evidence?

[LadyShea]

I am being honest when I say that I am a skeptical individual, which has kept me in good stead through the years. I am not being histrionic or trying to be self-congratulatory, but I did avoid a lot of pitfalls because of this position. I am grateful to my father for teaching me to take everything with a grain of salt.

However you were dishonest when you said "my skepticism prevented me from taking drugs that were later taken off the market because they were shown to cause cancer". The exaggeration in that claim is the basis for my charge of histrionics, and your patting yourself on the back for not taking the drugs the basis for the charge of self congratulatory.

Your skepticism seems very tightly targeted to those things Lessans also distrusted...the medical establishment and academics and established scientists. Why do you never turn it on the alternative health industry or on Lessans?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand, that's just the point. You are using a definition of determinism that isn't a part of his definition

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I mention anything about definitions of determinism, and what makes you think my working definition is the problem?

Because we're not on the same page. Lessans clearly stated that nothing causes us to do anything which this definition implies. That's why this working definition presents a problem and unless it is corrected this breakdown in communication will continue.

, which is more accurate in the sense that there are no antecedent events that cause us to act in a certain way,

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've never said that was the definition of determinism I "use" or am using.

You didn't have to say it; everyone uses the standard definition.

determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.

determinism (philosophy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia[quote]

That's why the "satisfaction principle" is a more accurate definition if accuracy means anything at all, especially when one is using a definition as a first premise. You don't understand this enough to even get an idea of what I mean by this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The satisfaction principle is tautological and fallacious and you've been completely unable to demonstrate it is "accurate"

I have explained why it is not tautological and why it is not a modal fallacy, but you won't let go of these false accusations because there's nothing left for you to hang onto. I have demonstrated his observations and how he came to his conclusions. Just because you fail to understand why his observations are spot on doesn't mean he's wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That being said, even if some form/version/concept of determinism could be proved true (it cannot be proven true), there's no basis for accepting that the reasoning Lessans gave, regarding his greater satisfaction principle, is accurate.

You just contradicted yourself. You said if some form/version/concept of determinism could be proved true, and then in the next breath you said it can't be proven true..

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no contradiction. I said "if it could..." indicating I was presenting a hypothetical. The parenthetical was my statement on the reality, which is that "determinism" is not really something that can be proven or disproven

To me, it sounded very contradictory even with the hypothetical. If it can be proven, then it should not follow that it can't be proven, even if it's your reality.

The reasons Lessans gave are absolutely undeniable, whether you are capable of seeing this or not. He was not dependent on you or anyone else to know that his observations were spot on. Anyway, continually telling me that these are mere assertions show me how little you know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith statements and assertions, as always

A shallow grasp of this knowledge masquerading as an authoritative synopsis.

[LadyShea]

You didn't have to say it; everyone uses the standard definition.

determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do. The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational because complete knowledge of any given situation assures that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.

There are multiple theses of determinism, so no, not everyone uses the same one or has the same definition in mind. Certainly not the one you just posted.

Here is the one that most closely reflects my working definition

Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Determinism