A revolution in thought

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so gung-ho on trying to outsmart Lessans.

I'll not put this one on my bucket list until I've managed to out-sprint a snail and out-shout a mouse.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The point you are missing LadyShea, is that Peacegirl has redefined "Tautology" as a statement that is false, and that is why she is arguing that this statement is not a tautology.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Since I am pretty sure you are not an American, you must be a socialist or communist or fascist. NOT DEMOCRATIC AT ALL! You love dictators don't you?! Admit it!!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

None of that makes his explanation of the free will principle non-circular/non-tautological. So you ware weaseling away from supporting your assertion that he did not use tautology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so gung-ho on trying to outsmart Lessans, it's no wonder we got nowhere.

I really don't think anyone here is trying to do that. I can't imagine anyone setting the bar that low.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about this one thread. Read more carefully next time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

They often end up leaving when they find out how demeaning people are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

That isn't even the point I was making. We all know there is no censorship but there is a downside to this. It isn't all fair as presumed to be. The comments put a lid on free discussion. If this was an experiment all it would prove is that bullying is alive and well.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

No, it's called play when it's one of you who are in the brotherhood (and there is a ruling class, those who made themselves the authorities); and then there are the outsiders, who are at the mercy of the group's derogatory putdowns to feed their insatiable hunger for more lulz. This feeds the group's ego while they lie in wait for the next unsuspecting person. They should have on the front of this forum: BEWARE OF MAD DOGS. I don't think it was meant to be this way, but it definitely IS THAT WAY.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I'll not put this one on my bucket list until I've managed to out-sprint a snail and out-shout a mouse.

You must have a turbo charger on your wheel chair.

And can you shout in tune?

Monty Python's Flying Circus - Musical Mice -...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BEWARE OF MAD DOGS.

Hey, now. You can make fun of me all you want and, just between us, that Lady Shea is a big meanie who makes people cry with her mind, but don't go picking on maddog. She's a nice lady.

[LadyShea]

They often end up leaving when they find out how demeaning people are.

Oh? Well then it all works as it is supposed to. If you like it here, stay...if you don't like it here, leave. Freedom of association, you see.

That isn't even the point I was making. We all know there is no censorship but there is a downside to this. It isn't all fair as presumed to be. The comments put a lid on free discussion. If this was an experiment all it would prove is that bullying is alive and well.

How do comments put a lid on free discussion?
Are you redefining the word bully, now? If so please offer your definition

No, it's called play when it's one of you who are in the brotherhood (and there is a ruling class, those who made themselves the authorities); and then there are the outsiders, who are at the mercy of the group's derogatory putdowns to feed their insatiable hunger for more lulz. This feeds the group's ego while they lie in wait for the next unsuspecting person. They should have on the front of this forum: BEWARE OF MAD DOGS. I don't think it was meant to be this way, but it definitely IS THAT WAY.

This is funny shit. See, you are hilarious! Could anyone be more clueless and histrionic than you?

Go hang around an anti-vaxing forum for awhile and tell me about mad dogs

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They often end up leaving when they find out how demeaning people are.

Name names, just who are "They" who have left the forum because they were demeaned or ridiculed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

The content of the book is accurate. Conscience works as described. Even when it comes to the people who are said to kill for fun (the ones who are said to be born evil) could not kill under certain environmental conditions because in order to do this they have to have a conscious or unconscious justification. For some, part of the excitement is to see if they get away with it which gives them the justification needed.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

In other words, no, you don't know what "tautology" means. Why didn't you just say so?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There's no point to letting you continue. Lessans made a claim to the effect that X (no free will), therefore Y (changed conditions, impossibility of blame, whatever). I'm saying that his argument for X is fatally flawed, therefore not (necessarily) Y. You're trying to gloss over the part where Lessans failed to establish X, and get right to the part where you wax rhapsodic about the glories of Y.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even when it comes to the people who are said to kill for fun (the ones who are said to be born evil) could not kill under certain environmental conditions because in order to do this they have to have a conscious or unconscious justification. For some, part of the excitement is to see if they get away with it which gives them the justification needed.

Are you speaking from experience?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Well then it all works as it is supposed to. If you like it here, stay...if you don't like it here, leave. Freedom of association, you see.

How do comments put a lid on free discussion?
Are you redefining the word bully, now? If so please offer your definition

This is funny shit. See, you are hilarious! Could anyone be more clueless and histrionic than you?

Go hang around an anti-vaxing forum for awhile and tell me about mad dogs

I'm not being histrionic. I'm being very calm, and I'm not exaggerating either. I'm not comparing this group to any other. Maybe I'd feel the same way about other groups. They may all have the same characteristics. Interestingly, the groups who think they have freedom of speech are squelching the very speech they value so highly. Can you not be honest with yourself LadyShea that this group has a mean streak? You are use to it, and you are not the target, so you can look at it dispassionately, but for others who are the target it has gotten in the way. In fact, it has ruined any chance for a fair and enjoyable conversation. Can't you see how everyone becomes part of group think in an effort to avoid becoming the next target? This is called self-preservation. There has not been a person that would dare cross the line of what is acceptable, or they know they will be the next person in line to become fodder for laughter.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience works as described.

"Conscience" is largely a religious term. In truth, conscience isn't a thing or force; the word is useful, though, as a shorthand way of describing the complex (and still largely unknown) interaction of socio-cultural conditioning and the human brain. Lessans' silliness boils down to a claim that if we change human society we'll change human behavior, which, lol no shit.

[LadyShea]

Interestingly, the groups who think they have freedom of speech are squelching the very speech they value so highly. Can you not be honest with yourself LadyShea that this group has a mean streak?

Being mean is not the equivalent of squelching free speech. Why are you conflating the two?

[Stephen Maturin]

In peacegirl's defense, she's extraordinarily stupid.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since I am pretty sure you are not an American, you must be a socialist or communist or fascist. NOT DEMOCRATIC AT ALL! You love dictators don't you?! Admit it!!

Don't forget how I hate you because of your freedom, too.

[LadyShea]

“We live in a world in which people are censured, demoted, imprisoned, beheaded, simply because they have opened their mouths, flapped their lips, and vibrated some air. Yes, those vibrations can make us feel sad or stupid or alienated. Tough shit. That's the price of admission to the marketplace of ideas. Hateful, blasphemous, prejudiced, vulgar, rude, or ignorant remarks are the music of a free society, and the relentless patter of idiots is how we know we're in one. When all the words in our public conversation are fair, good, and true, it's time to make a run for the fence.”
― Daniel Gilbert

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

"Conscience" is largely a religious term. In truth, conscience isn't a thing or force; the word is useful, though, as a shorthand way of describing the complex (and still largely unknown) interaction of socio-cultural conditioning and the human brain. Lessans' silliness boils down to a claim that if we change human society we'll change human behavior, which, lol no shit.

You obviously don't understand the discovery.

Since humans choose whatever it is they choose move in the direction of Greater Satisfaction, that means that all we need is Changed Conditions to usher in the paradise! Once you understand this, it's really just a simple matter of eliminating all the reasons that anyone might ever have to do anything anti-social and, like magic, no one will ever do anything anti-social again, freeing us all up to spend more time shopping for translucent apparel and table wax.

If you were not so brainwashed by name-calling, and compelled by the Tyrant Vivisectus the Mad to stamp out free speech, you would understand all this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

There's no point to letting you continue. Lessans made a claim to the effect that X (no free will), therefore Y (changed conditions, impossibility of blame, whatever). I'm saying that his argument for X is fatally flawed, therefore not (necessarily) Y. You're trying to gloss over the part where Lessans failed to establish X, and get right to the part where you wax rhapsodic about the glories of Y.

I'm not glossing over X. I never have. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction when given two or more alternatives. This is an undeniable fact. Do you think I would move on to Y if I didn't know X was true? All the foundational principles must be true for this discovery to be valid, and they are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

You obviously don't understand the discovery.

Since humans choose whatever it is they choose move in the direction of Greater Satisfaction, that means that all we need is Changed Conditions to usher in the paradise! Once you understand this, it's really just a simple matter of eliminating all the reasons that anyone might ever have to do anything anti-social and, like magic, no one will ever do anything anti-social again, freeing us all up to spend more time shopping for translucent apparel and table wax.

If you were not so brainwashed by name-calling, and compelled by the Tyrant Vivisectus the Mad to stamp out free speech, you would understand all this.

Very unfortunate Adam that you turned this post into a joke. I was ready to actually converse with you on a serious level, but you blew it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not glossing over X. I never have. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction when given two or more alternatives. This is an undeniable fact. Do you think I would move on to Y if I didn't know X was true? All the foundational principles must be true for this discovery to be valid, and they are.

Oh, why didn't you just say earlier that all Lessans' claims were true? I was thinking I'd need to see a compelling argument, but I'm sure your assurances will do instead.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm still waiting for some evidence that peacegirl understands how vaccines work.

And for some reason to think that 36 vaccinations in 2 years' time [as if kids actually receive that many] somehow overwhelms the immune system, given that it's not unusual to be exposed to 36 novel antigens in a single day.