A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Adam posted a good demonstration of Lessans tautological arguments and you were unable to refute his reasoning. You came off as the unimpressive one.

And I am willing to bet all of us that are still here remain for the fun of it. Fun looks different to different people is all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

here is dr Blaylocks entry in Quackwatch:

Russell Blaylock, M.D. - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

He is retired as a neurosurgeon, and foccusses on selling miracle cures for Alzheimer's and cancer that do not seem to do much in clinical trials.

That said: you need to take a good look at how this guy and guys like him operate. They may be complete frauds, but I have to say I am in awe of the way they manage to sell their stuff. Any guy can sell medicine that works, medicine that has actually been tested in clinical trials and such.

But it takes talent to sell what is basically snake-oil.

No Vivisectus, how can you be this slimy as if no one sees this? We are not talking about what he's selling, because I'm not buying anything from him. You can't ignore the facts (or at least check them out to make sure they are facts) just because he's selling something that you think has no value. That's what people have done to me; they are using my mistakes as some kind of proof that this book can have no merit. You are no different than a fundie in your way of thinking. Try again.

[LadyShea]

How is researching the credibility of a person you proffered up as someone to be listened to "slimy"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Adam posted a good demonstration of Lessans tautological arguments and you were unable to refute his reasoning. You came off as the unimpressive one.

And I am willing to bet all of us that are still here remain for the fun of it. Fun looks different to different people is all.

I don't care why people are here at this point. He did not prove that Lessans' reasoning is a tautology. Neither did you, yet you think you actually did. You now are taking for granted that this knowledge is false. It is accurate, but there's no convincing you until someone in authority confirms that he was right. That's why we have made no progress and I'm beyond discussing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is researching the credibility of a person you proffered up as someone to be listened to "slimy"?

Because he did not go after the facts; he went after a skeptical website to find dirt on this man. Anyone can do that, but that does that prove there are not dangers with the amount and type of vaccines we are now injecting into our children? We do not know the full impact of what these vaccines could be doing to our children's brains later in life. If you, as a parent, want to risk it, then by all means follow the latest vaccine schedule. I do not believe we should we blindly follow whatever the latest recommendations are without carefully examining the potential down side. We cannot put our heads in the sand, and trust the medical profession to do the right thing because if your child happens to be one of the unlucky ones, they will not have to live with the consequences. No amount of money could compensate for a life destroyed due to a vaccine that did fulfill its intended purpose. Did you know that we now give 36 vaccines to children before the age of two, which I didn't even realize until I listened to this video? That's quadruple what I got as a child, and triple what my children got. Don't you think that is cause for alarm? Everyone deserves the right to know what the possible risks are in order to make an informed choice. I am thankful for his video because what he is saying gives me a more balanced outlook on what is at stake. I am not telling you what to do, but by the same token I should be respected for my right as a parent to do what I feel is best.

[LadyShea]

Both Adam and I offered demonstrations of tautology which you were unwilling and/or unable to refute. So our demonstrations stand unopposed.

You should at least try for a rational refutation instead of leaving your "IS NOT!" standing as your only response.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus, how can you be this slimy as if no one sees this? We are not talking about what he's selling, because I'm not buying anything from him. You can't ignore the facts (or at least check them out to make sure they are facts) just because he's selling something that you think has no value. That's what people have done to me; they are using my mistakes as some kind of proof that this book can have no merit. You are no different than a fundie in the way of thinking. Sorry. Try again.

Speaking for myself, I think the book has no value primarily because it does not support it's claims in any way: there is no reason in the book or anywhere else to believe conscience works as the book claims it does.

This is important as just about everything else in the book hinges on it. I have repeatedly asked you for it, but you have failed to do so. Some of your answers were:

A: It was an astute observation that conscience works this way
B: We are just going to have to trust conscience works this way
C: Explaining THAT conscience works that way constitutes a demonstration, which counts as evidence for conscience working that way.

These are all highly illogical answers, and not good reasons at all to believe conscience works as described in the book.

So it is not your mistakes that discredit the book: it is the content of the book. Your attempts at getting around this have not helped, however, as they have included highly illogical and sometimes downright dishonest responses.

I classify Blaylock as a snake-oil salesman for similar reasons: he sells stuff that he calls medicine, and about which he makes a number of claims which he cannot support, as they have not been properly tested.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

- Number of people who have ruined it for everyone.
- Horses led to water.
- Proof-puddings eaten.

Number of times this thread has been moderated due to peer pressure.
Number of times this train wreck has been derailed.


I should put my name on the list of those 'with an agenda'.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you know that we now give 36 vaccines to children before the age of two, which I didn't even realize until I listened to this video?

Out of curiosity, how do you think that vaccines work?

Specifically, do you think that there is a limit to how many different types of antigen-specific T- and B-lymphocytes we can produce in a given amount of time? If so, why? Be certain to provide appropriate references.

Also, be certain to account for the fact that a normal child will encounter many more than 36 novel antigens during the first 2 years of life, and yet will have no trouble producing B- and T-lymphocytes specific to those antigens. So why does exposing them to a few more matter?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you know that we now give 36 vaccines to children before the age of two

Did you verify that claim as factual? Can you point me to the evidence for that claim? My 7 year old child has been fully vaccinated and did not have nearly that many before age 2.

According to the 2013 CDC recommended schedule (PDF) there are 13 vaccinations before age 2 if you break apart the compounded MMR and DTaP. In addition to those 6 there is HepB, HepA, Varicella, IPV, PVC, Hib, and RV. 14 if you include a flu shot.

Are you counting each booster of the same stuff as a separate vaccine?

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1152097]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is researching the credibility of a person you proffered up as someone to be listened to "slimy"?

Because he did not go after the facts; he went after a skeptical website to find dirt on this man.

Actually I looked at quite a bit more. I read some of his articles, looked at the claims he made, and then checked if those claims are backed up in any of the material he quotes. He has an unfortunate habit of misrepresenting evidence. A good example is this article where he claims there is evidence that unknown actors are deliberately and secretly spraying us with Nanoaluminium compounds, using airplanes. It is the famous "chemtrails" conspiracy theory, which he seems to agree with:

http://consciouslifenews.com/chemtrails-doing-brain-neurosurgeon-dr-russell-blaylock-reveals-shocking-facts/1160096/

Anyone can do that, but that does that prove there are not dangers with the amount and type of vaccines we are now injecting into our children?

I am not trying to prove anything of the kind. I notice that you are assuming that there are such dangers, however. What do you base that assumption on?

I am just pointing out the fact that Blaylock a) has a habit of making claims he cannot support and b) that these specific claims he makes are also not sufficiently supported.

We do not know the full impact of what these vaccines could be doing to our children's brains later in life

.

Hence we should not pretend that we know that there are any, that they are bad, and that they are worse than the diseases they prevent.

If you, as a parent, want to risk it, then by all means follow the latest vaccine schedule. I do not believe we should we blindly follow whatever the latest recommendations are without carefully examining the potential down side.

If only the people actually informed themselves in stead of regurgitating bad information they have not checked, just like you are doing now.

We cannot put our heads in the sand, and trust the medical profession to do the right thing because if your child happens to be one of the unlucky ones, they will not have to live with the consequences.

Again, you assume that these risks are real. You are arguing from a lack of evidence, however. Why would this not work both ways?

No amount of money could compensate for a life destroyed due to a vaccine that did fulfill its intended purpose.

That is neither here nor there. No amount of money can compensate for the loss of a child due to preventable diseases either. And this can happen to you even if you did not choose not to vaccinate.

Did you know that we now give 36 vaccines to children before the age of two, which I didn't even realize until I listened to this video? That's quadruple what I got as a child, and triple what my children got. Don't you think that is cause for alarm?

Did you know that your Dr Blaylock claims that these 36 antigens somehow overload a child's immune system because there are too many of them being introduced in too short a time? And that this is rather odd, as there is no evidence that this is the case? And that it is ever odder when you consider that we acquire antigens on a daily basis as we get exposed to different pathogens? And that you acquire about 50 new ones in a few days every time you catch a case of strep throat, and a dozen or so every time you catch a cold?

But, no, 36 VACCINATIONS is a BIG NUMBER and this should ALARM us!!!1!!

Everyone deserves the right to know what the possible risks are in order to make an informed choice.

If only people actually informed themselves in stead of repeating the standard alarmist claptrap, like you are doing now. As if anyone is trying to stop people from informing themselves! However, poor decisions based on low-quality information such as the stuff Blaylock spouts still lead to bad consequences... and not just for the people who make the poor decisions and their children, either.

I am thankful for his video because what he is saying gives me a more balanced outlook on what is at stake. I am not telling you what to do, but by the same token I should be respected for my right as a parent to do what I feel is best.

...but as you have clearly demonstrated, you do not know what is best. This is because you have not informed yourself adequately, but in stead have just accepted what Blaylock said as plausible without actually looking into it.

[Vivisectus]

Uhoh! Peacegirl called me slimy! That is namecalling.

names called +1 (slimy, PG -> Vivisectus)

[Vivisectus]

- Number of people who have ruined it for everyone.
- Horses led to water.
- Proof-puddings eaten.

Important additions, which I clearly overlooked!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care why people are here at this point. He did not prove that Lessans' reasoning is a tautology. Neither did you, yet you think you actually did. You now are taking for granted that this knowledge is false. It is accurate, but there's no convincing you until someone in authority confirms that he was right. That's why we have made no progress and I'm beyond discussing it.

I asked you this years - again, literally, years - ago, but I don't remember you ever answering. Do you know what "tautology" means?

[Vivisectus]

I should put my name on the list of those 'with an agenda'.

Duly noted: People with Agenda +1, TheDoc

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Assuming you're referring to pages 46-59, I believe that's what I was doing here:

Do you need more detail?

THIS author begins by defining "free will" as "a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity". THIS author proceeds to equivocate between different definitions of "good and evil" such that the definition THIS author actually ends up working with is something more like (paraphrase) "the ability to choose my preference or not". That's not typically what people mean when they say "free will", which is why I called it an idiosyncratic definition.

THIS author devotes quite a few words to talking about what THIS author calls "the motion of life", which simply ends up being an unnecessarily flowery way of saying that whatever one chooses is, by definition, one's preference.

Having chosen to define "free will" such that the ability to choose something other than one's own preference is key to it, and subsequently demonstrating that is it tautologically impossible to choose other than one's own preference, THIS author reaches the trivial conclusion that "free will" in this particular sense does not exist.

If this is "[c]ategorically wrong!!!", then I would appreciate your taking the time to point out where I have misconstrued THIS author's arguments.

It is true that we can only choose what we choose (Lessans even expressed this in his book), but you are missing the most important element of all of this and that is, under the changed conditions, what we choose as preferable can not be to hurt others with a first blow (this is not a choice because to hurt others is an impossibility under these conditions). You have not understood what having no free will actually means, and why we should be grateful that God knew what he was doing. . If you would let me continue, I would do so, but now it's just too late, unfortunately. I cannot fight against the onslaught of misinformation, vitriol, and false superiority.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I asked you this years - again, literally, years - ago, but I don't remember you ever answering. Do you know what "tautology" means?

Adam, I know what a tautology is, but you are not recognizing that this knowledge did not come from a tautology. That would be like saying, the ball is round because the ball is round. This is a far cry from what he observed and what followed from his observations. Adam, why didn't you continue to discuss your misgivings? You put a stop to any further discussion, which is sad, but it's too late now. I'm done. I do hope you read the book.

[Vivisectus]

Ah, of course

Instances of Peacegirl being unable to explain or support her point because of other people's attitude and/or psionic powers: +1

[Vivisectus]

the ball is round because the ball is round

we can only choose what we choose

[LadyShea]

Just sayin'

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So it is a tautology? Tautologies may be perfectly true, after all. Meaningfulness isn't a factor in the above exchange.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We aren't talking about anything else right now. I was responding to your statement:

It is a tautology as stated, which you just agreed is true. So why do you keep saying that it isn't a tautology and that I am wrong, when you know and agree that I am right?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is from February

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If there is no distinction to be made between 1. and 2. then it is circular reasoning.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well whatever he said wasn't very impressive. I can tell he's just looking for lulz, like most everyone here. You all sound alike. This is not what I call free thought, or free expression. This is the most carefully guarded forum, not by any rule that says how a person should behave, but by peer pressure. The consequences of stepping out of line are great; ridicule and derision that is far worse than what a moderator would judge inappropriate.

OMG you are ridiculous. If people felt pressured or guarded or at threat of dire consequences they simply wouldn't come to this thread at all...like 98% of the members of the forum. If they felt the whole forum was a guarded and pressured environment where they couldn't express themselves or felt threatened or unhappy, they wouldn't come to at all.

Seriously what exactly is wrong with you? Nobody is forced to be at this tiny forum on the Internet that nobody links to. Everyone who is a member and visits here and posts here does so voluntarily. Every single person who visits here and posts here is free to not visit here or post here. Every single person who visits here and posts here is aware that there is no moderation or censorship of ideas- and only a few basic rules- and that their ideas might be ridiculed and derided. Yet, they choose to come here and they choose to be here just as you do.

I will say that we ridicule and deride each other pretty freely, for the lulz

[Vivisectus]

Nonsense - you are all here because you have to. I am your Tyrant and I will have it so!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

- Number of people who have ruined it for everyone.
- Horses led to water.

This is a number beyond my ability to count, and would include everyone who has ever posted on a Peacegirl thread, including Peacegirl and Lessans.


I wonder how many of those horses approached the water in reverse?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Both Adam and I offered demonstrations of tautology which you were unwilling and/or unable to refute. So our demonstrations stand unopposed.

You should at least try for a rational refutation instead of leaving your "IS NOT!" standing as your only response.

How many times did I tell you that it is true that whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but it becomes an extremely important observation as you begin to understand why we can only move in one direction given the changed conditioned. Why can't you acknowledge that your claim of a tautology may not be all there is to it? You are so gung-ho on trying to outsmart Lessans, it's no wonder we got nowhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I asked you this years - again, literally, years - ago, but I don't remember you ever answering. Do you know what "tautology" means?

Maybe you weren't here, but I went over this countless times. The observation that we move in the direction of greater preference (or satisfaction) becomes an important factor as you understand why it will be impossible to choose, as a preferable option, striking a first blow when all advance blame, hurt, judgment, and punishment are removed from the environment. If will was free we could move in this direction regardless of environmental factors.