A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Adam

Who is blaming you? Why do you keep talking about blame? In the new world, no one will blame or question you when their children die from easily preventable communicable diseases, they'll simply shrug, dress in their translucent best, and retire to the dinner table for the Motion of Creating New Life until some of them move in the direction of Greater Satisfaction, and the rest fake it.

Fake it ! You can't be serious, faking it would be false and that would entail the risk of hurting another's feelings and that would never happen.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right about that. His claim of no free will must be accurate for the rest of his book to have a leg to stand on.

Lessans' contentions regarding free will being accurate is indeed a necessary condition for the accuracy of his remaining contentions, but it's by no means a sufficient condition.

Herein lies lulz. Even if we assume for discussion's sake that everything Lessans said about determinism, the workings of conscience, and the ever-so-lulzily designated "two-sided equation" is true, Lessantology still has no transformative power of any sort.

According to Lessans, it makes no sense to blame others for their actions once we know that they didn't have the capacity (free will) to do otherwise. Lessans refers to "Thou Shalt Not Blame" as a "corollary" of his "discovery" that people lack free will.

Lessans also claims that human conscience doesn't operate at full capacity in a "free will environment." As we know others will consider the harm we do blameworthy, our conscience can "justify" dishing out harm. Conscience requires that consequences be imposed upon a harmful act. So long as blame from outside imposes such consequences, conscience need not impose consequences from within.

However, once we've internalized the "truth" that humans lack free will, and its no-blame corollary, we can't even consider harming others because we cannot appease our consciences through justification. Thus, with our conscience now fully buffed, the very thought of doing something harmful reduces us to a state of gibbering, drooling incontinence.

Accordingly, what will prevent people from acting to harm one another is fear of the dire internal consequences that conscience, liberated from the shackles of the belief in free will, would impose on us.

When everyone knows about the absence of free will and the no-blame corollary, then I will know that neither you nor anyone else will blame me for anything I do to you. Knowing that you will not hold me accountable, my conscience must do the work. Thus, we get Lessans' two-sided equation: I must hold myself accountable for harm I know you must excuse.

BUT! Lessans clearly wrote that the no-blame corollary applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. After a harm is delivered, we're entirely justified in fixing blame and responding. In one of his examples, Lessans wrote that he'd gleefully blow the everluvin' head off anyone who broke into his house. That being "true" (), the already-teetering edifice of the Great Man's system collapses to rubble.

What keeps us on the straight and narrow in the Golden Age is "knowledge" that no one would ever blame us for harming them. But we don't know that. Indeed, we can't know that because, according to Lessans himself, it isn't true. Again, "Thou Shalt Not Blame" applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. Accordingly, we know in advance that we will be blamed if we place one or more of our fellow human beings in a hurtlock. Buh bye, two-sided equation!

The "solution" to the above-described problem seems to involve Lessans' decree that we'll all need to sign no-blame contracts as a condition precedent to admission into the Lessantonian Grand Society. How that works is anyone's guess. After all, signing an agreement not to blame does nothing to change the "fact" that, according to Lessans, blame is justified after a harm is delivered. That being the case, the condition that supposedly eliminates the desire to do anything that could be harmful -- i.e., the "knowledge" that you'd never be blamed -- is chimerical.

peacegirl told me awhile back that signing no-blame contracts is a "necessary condition" to the advent of the novus ordo seclorum. When I asked why, I got some Authentic Lessantonian Gibberish amounting to "cuz it is." It's kinda like when people were asking how the same photons that are illuminating an object a thousand light years away can simultaneously be in physical contact with the retinas of an observer on earth. The answer: "Because of efferent vision."

show spoiler

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, calling people names because they hold a certain position is really no different than calling people names who are of a different color.

Yes, it is very different.

People don't change their position because that's what they believe in, therefore to criticize them is like criticizing them for their eye color.

LOL, no, that is not remotely analogous.

If you're honest with yourself, criticizing someone just because they don't agree with your opinion is ignorant and a way to put others down so you can feel superior.

I don't criticize people "just because" they disagree with my opinion.

Words are expressions of what people believe.

Sometimes

Judging their beliefs on the basis of what you know to be true is one thing; judging their worth as human beings is quite another. You're getting the two mixed up.

I am not. I said nothing about judging anyone's worth as a human being ...that was thedoc...you misattributed that quote.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Want your kids to develop a good, robust, properly-functioning immune system? Let 'em go out and get dirty.

Better yet, let them eat dirt.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maturin and David are mean, period. I will not talk to them again because they are hiding behind their insecurities.

How does somebody do that? Most people have some insecurities and they try to hide them behind some sort of manufactured facade. I don't think I have ever met anyone who tried to hide behind their insecurities.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is a reason to believe conscience works this way.

What might that be?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that will change in the new world is that doctors themselves will give the pros and cons and leave it up to parents to make the decision. Vaccines will not be mandatory.

In other words, no change from the way it is today.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Parents are the best advocates for their children and will always do what they believe is in their children's best interest.

Tell that to the daughters of this woman.

[Vivisectus]

There is also the interesting issue that if we accept that parents have the ultimate say in what is best for their children, and that no-one else has any say about it, then we cannot object to female circumcision. Is that a case of parents being the best advocates as well?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is also the interesting issue that if we accept that parents have the ultimate say in what is best for their children, and that no-one else has any say about it, then we cannot object to female circumcision. Is that a case of parents being the best advocates as well?

Or parents who let their children die for religious reasons.

[Vivisectus]

Sure. Intervention in cases where the children of Jehova's witnesses need a blood transfusion can also no longer be allowed: parents are always the best advocates for their children, so letting them die when a simple blood transfusion can save them is what is best for them QED.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Who is blaming you? Why do you keep talking about blame? In the new world, no one will blame or question you when their children die from easily preventable communicable diseases, they'll simply shrug, dress in their translucent best, and retire to the dinner table for the Motion of Creating New Life until some of them move in the direction of Greater Satisfaction, and the rest fake it.

You're still not getting it. It is a mother's nature to do what she thinks is best for her child. Unless a doctor can give a 100% guarantee that her child will not be hurt by the vaccine, the most he can do (in the new world, that is) is explain what the vaccine is meant to do, and give the statistics. He would also be compelled to admit that he cannot know how her child will react, so it will be up to her to make the decision. Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO DOCTOR WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHICH CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS RECOMMENDATION. Why would he put himself in this position when his standard of living is guaranteed never to go down? Do you not understand this, or do you have cotton in your ears? Adam, if you are serious about conversing with me (which I doubt), then you better stop imitating Davidm and Vivisectus. Your last comment is so ridiculous, and if it gives you satisfaction to joke rather than discuss your misgivings so I can put your mind at rest, then by all means keep it up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure. Intervention in cases where the children of Jehova's witnesses need a blood transfusion can also no longer be allowed: parents are always the best advocates for their children, so letting them die when a simple blood transfusion can save them is what is best for them QED.

But you are failing to understand that formal religion that teaches this kind of stuff is on the way out, so this type of ignorance will be eliminated. Again, how can a preacher tell a parent not to take advantage of scientific advancement when God himself has given man the ability to help one another in time of need? He couldn't justify it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is also the interesting issue that if we accept that parents have the ultimate say in what is best for their children, and that no-one else has any say about it, then we cannot object to female circumcision. Is that a case of parents being the best advocates as well?

But all of these superstitions are coming to an end. Science will actually be taking the lead in ridding the world of these old wives tales. Also, female circumcision is a form of hurt. The first thing this book defines is what a hurt is: anything a person does not want done to himself, which would make imposing this form of butchery on a child as a first blow which could never be justified under the changed conditions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Better yet, let them eat dirt.

Actually, it has been proven that children have stronger immune systems when they are allowed to be exposed to normal everyday germs. Children that live on farms or have dogs have stronger immune systems as well. We're not talking about exposing children to feces in dirt, but dirt itself may have some benefit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that formal religion that teaches this kind of stuff is on the way out, so this type of ignorance will be eliminated. Again, how can a preacher tell a parent not to take advantage of scientific advancement when God himself has given man the ability to help one another in time of need? He couldn't justify it.

How could a parent, preacher, or doctor advocate against taking advantage of man's God given ability to create vaccines that can prevent dangerous diseases.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that formal religion that teaches this kind of stuff is on the way out, so this type of ignorance will be eliminated. Again, how can a preacher tell a parent not to take advantage of scientific advancement when God himself has given man the ability to help each other in time of need? He couldn't justify it.

I was talking about your contention that parents are always the best advocates for their children, and should always be allowed to make all decisions for them, which you brought up to justify a parents choice to not vaccinate.

This is clearly not a tenable point of view. Also, there are many beliefs that people hold that can endanger children, and they are not all religious. There is the case of the vegan couple that starved their baby to death, for instance.

It has nothing to do with the "changed conditions".

Besides, I am pretty sure that you do not proffer up articles full of atrocious misinformation written by unqualified people who do bad research because you feel you can justify it to yourself because we would blame you for it later if you were found out: you actually think it is good information that we should consider. You would therefor continue to proffer up the same bad information in the new conditions.

Nor would people stop writing that sad stuff: they too truly believe they are right.

The new conditions will not remove good ole misinformation. Thus it will not remove bad decisions, and even in THAT case we cannot automatically assume parents will do the best for their kids.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But all of these superstitions are coming to an end. Science will actually be taking the lead in ridding the world of these old wives tales. Also, female circumcision is a form of hurt. The first thing this book defines is what a hurt is: anything a person does not want done to himself, which would make imposing this form of butchery on a child as a first blow which could never be justified under the changed conditions.

Withholding a vaccine and allowing your child to catch polio is also a hurt: I would certainly not want someone to do it to me.

Or maybe administering the polio vaccine is a hurt? You seem to feel it may not be the best thing to do.

Or maybe withholding the vaccine from my child, which then gets sick, infects an infant which has not been vaccinated yet, which dies, is a hurt? I am sure the parents of that child would think so.

People seem to have differing opinions on this.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, it has been proven that children have stronger immune systems when they are allowed to be exposed to normal everyday germs. Children that live on farms or have dogs have stronger immune systems as well. We're not talking about exposing children to feces in dirt, but dirt itself may have some benefit.

What? But there are more than 30 antigens involved, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHECKED FOR INTERACTION RISK!!11!!!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Better yet, let them eat dirt.

No No, that's cake, "Let them eat Cake".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What? But there are more than 30 antigens involved, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHECKED FOR INTERACTION RISK!!11!!!

And have they been clinically tested for safety?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO DOCTOR WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHICH CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS RECOMMENDATION.

Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO PARENT WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHETHER HIS CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS DECISION.

In the Golden Age, everyone will be paralyzed into inaction via fear absent circumstances involving 100 percent certainty, which are rare indeed. Since children are born into the world unvaccinated, Lessantonian emotional paralysis ensures that no one will ever get vaccinated again. So the anti-vaxers automatically win!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans' contentions regarding free will being accurate is indeed a necessary condition for the accuracy of his remaining contentions, but it's by no means a sufficient condition.

Herein lies lulz. Even if we assume for discussion's sake that everything Lessans said about determinism, the workings of conscience, and the ever-so-lulzily designated "two-sided equation" is true, Lessantology still has no transformative power of any sort.

According to Lessans, it makes no sense to blame others for their actions once we know that they didn't have the capacity (free will) to do otherwise. Lessans refers to "Thou Shalt Not Blame" as a "corollary" of his "discovery" that people lack free will.

Yes, that's true because of what happens in the extension.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Lessans also claims that human conscience doesn't operate at full capacity in a "free will environment." As we know others will consider the harm we do blameworthy, our conscience can "justify" dishing out harm. Conscience requires that consequences be imposed upon a harmful act. So long as blame from outside imposes such consequences, conscience need not impose consequences from within.

What are you talking about? Conscience requires justification, that is true. It does not require consequences to be imposed upon a harmful act, that is not true. And what do you mean by your last statement? You are so confused it's mind boggling. How can conscience impose consequences when conscience gets stronger when there are no consequences to anticipate from the outside? Answer that before starting with your laughter and put downs?

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

However, once we've internalized the "truth" that humans lack free will, and its no-blame corollary, we can't even consider harming others because we cannot appease our consciences through justification. Thus, with our conscience now fully buffed, the very thought of doing something harmful reduces us to a state of gibbering, drooling incontinence.

No, it reduces us to a state of freedom, for all of us deserve the right to enjoy life without the restrictions that man-made laws demand us to follow? And guess what, we get greater compliance because these are God's laws, not man's. Do you not understand this, or do I need to explain this to you in greater detail?

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Accordingly, what will prevent people from acting to harm one another is fear of the dire internal consequences that conscience, liberated from the shackles of the belief in free will, would impose on us.

It's true that our society which is based on the belief that we could have chosen otherwise is the problem, because we could not have chosen otherwise under our particular circumstances. What stops us from acting to harm one another is the fear that we are striking a first blow without justification BECAUSE THE HURT DONE TO US IS ALSO ELIMINATED. You can't expect someone not to cause harm when they have already been harmed themselves.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

When everyone knows about the absence of free will and the no-blame corollary, then I will know that neither you nor anyone else will blame me for anything I do to you. Knowing that you will not hold me accountable, my conscience must do the work. Thus, we get Lessans' two-sided equation: I must hold myself accountable for harm I know you must excuse.

This has nothing to do with "must". This is a phenomenon that neither you or anyone else can get past. Try it Maturin and see if you can justify harming someone when there is no justification. Show me where you can do this, and I'll concede.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

BUT! Lessans clearly wrote that the no-blame corollary applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. After a harm is delivered, we're entirely justified in fixing blame and responding. In one of his examples, Lessans wrote that he'd gleefully blow the everluvin' head off anyone who broke into his house. That being "true" (), the already-teetering edifice of the Great Man's system collapses to rubble.

Are you kidding me? It doesn't collapse, which is why this knowledge works.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

What keeps us on the straight and narrow in the Golden Age is "knowledge" that no one would ever blame us for harming them. But we don't know that.

But you will know that.

Originally Posted by Stehen_Maturin

Indeed, we can't know that because, according to Lessans himself, it isn't true.

What isn't true?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Again, "Thou Shalt Not Blame" applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. Accordingly, we know in advance that we will be blamed if we place one or more of our fellow human beings in a hurtlock. Buh bye, two-sided equation!

What does that even mean, and why are you trying to confuse the discussion with your verbiage that no one could possibly understand. Could it be you are not sure of your own argument? Just asking.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The "solution" to the above-described problem seems to involve Lessans' decree

Whoaaa, this is not Lessans' decree. This is an extension of his reasoning which is not his at all. Why do you keep making it appear that this is about Lessans? It is not.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

that we'll all need to sign no-blame contracts as a condition precedent to admission into the Lessantonian Grand Society.

There you go again trying to make this Lessans' society. This is insane.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

How that works is anyone's guess. After all, signing an agreement not to blame does nothing to change the "fact" that, according to Lessans, blame is justified after a harm is delivered.

Of course, and this is where you're having a problem. How can a hurt occur if it is prevented. Just answer me this before complaining that a hurt must take place after the fact.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That being the case, the condition that supposedly eliminates the desire to do anything that could be harmful -- i.e., the "knowledge" that you'd never be blamed -- is chimerical.

No way, and this is where you are very confused Stephen. You do not understand why a no blame environment, and a change that eliminates the need to hurt others as the lesser of two evils, prevents the hurt that you believe will still take place. You are wrong, and if you want to defend your reasoning, do it, but you are wrong. Very very wrong.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl told me awhile back that signing no-blame contracts is a "necessary condition" to the advent of the novus ordo seclorum. When I asked why, I got some Authentic Lessantonian Gibberish amounting to "cuz it is."

No, you are not going to get away with this. There has to be a transitional period and if people don't want to sign a contract, which is necessary to get this new world off the ground, then don't sign. No one is telling you to do this, but the benefits are so amazing that very few people would want to give up this opportunity. This has nothing to do with Lessans, but has everything to do with God. I know you're laughing now. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturn

It's kinda like when people were asking how the same photons that are illuminating an object a thousand light years away can simultaneously be in physical contact with the retinas of an observer on earth. The answer: "Because of efferent vision."

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

show spoiler

Your spoilers are funny but anyone who has a brain will question your worldview. You don't understand the mechanism that allows us to see in real time, so it's easy to laugh. Isn't that you have done this whole time? I'm not surprised. But you are not the last word on any of this, so people stay tuned. Now I will put you back on ignore; I'm glad I check from time to time for damage control.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO PARENT WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHETHER HIS CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS DECISION.

In the Golden Age, everyone will be paralyzed into inaction via fear absent circumstances involving 100 percent certainty, which are rare indeed. Since children are born into the world unvaccinated, Lessantonian emotional paralysis ensures that no one will ever get vaccinated again. So the anti-vaxers automatically win!

Where are these unvaccinated kids even coming from? We can't predict with absolute certainty which children will be born with crippling birth defects. In the new world NO POTENTIAL PARENT WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONCEPTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF THE FUTURE CHILD WILL BE HURT BY THIS DECISION.

In the Golden Age, we'll Children of Men ourselves right our of existence thanks to the uncertainties of childbirth.

[Stephen Maturin]

We'll reproduce by building cyborgs with brains full of rodent parvovirus that'll eat any cancer that might develop. Sovereignism will win the day after all!

[Vivisectus]

Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO PARENT WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHETHER HIS CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS DECISION.

So then, when the chances of raising a child past the age of 5 has dropped back to about 2 out of 5, we will congratulate ourselves in a job well done: at least we did not potentially hurt anyone!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not getting it. It is a mother's nature to do what she thinks is best for her child. Unless a doctor can give a 100% guarantee that her child will not be hurt by the vaccine, the most he can do (in the new world, that is) is explain what the vaccine is meant to do, and give the statistics. He would also be compelled to admit that he cannot know how her child will react, so it will be up to her to make the decision. Yes, a child could die without being vaccinated, but a child could die as a result of being vaccinated. In the new world NO DOCTOR WILL WANT TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBLITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN KNOW WHICH CHILD WILL BE HURT BY HIS RECOMMENDATION. Why would he put himself in this position when his standard of living is guaranteed never to go down? Do you not understand this, or do you have cotton in your ears? Adam, if you are serious about conversing with me (which I doubt), then you better stop imitating Davidm and Vivisectus. Your last comment is so ridiculous, and if it gives you satisfaction to joke rather than discuss your misgivings so I can put your mind at rest, then by all means keep it up.

I'm not particular interested in discussing how you think medical decisions will be made (or, apparently, not made) in the Lessantological Golden Age. Well, except for the humor value, obviously. Here in the real world, choosing not to vaccinate has real, potentially deadly, consequences for people other than the person making that choice.

Also, :

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously did not watch this video. Vaccinated children may not be completely protected either, and unvaccinated children may have enough immunity to be protected, so to blame only the unvaccinated children for a disease outbreak is a biased view. Secondly, it is the right of every person to do what they feel is right for their families; not to have to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of the group.

Originally Posted by Adam

Similarly, I don't see why I shouldn't keep boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around my house. It would be costly for me to clean them up, and I might accidentally start a fire if I start messing with them. Besides, there's no guarantee that they'll ever catch fire, and it's certainly possible that my neighbor's house might catch fire on its own, despite her having chosen not to store gasoline soaked rags in it. It is very biased to blame only me for increasing the risk of a fire that devastates the entire neighborhood. It is my right to do what I believe is best, and not have to sacrifice my own well-being for the good of the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a poor analogy. If there is the possibility that you could set your neighbor's house on fire as a result of carelessly leaving boxes of gasoline soaked rags all around your house, then you would never allow yourself to do this because the potential danger would be too great to risk, and all of the reasoning in favor of keeping the rags in your home would never suffice. On the other hand, there is no direct correlation between a few unvaccinated children and the mass hysteria that has ensued. As I stated in the last post to Lone Ranger, even children who are vaccinated are not always fully protected and may therefore be responsible for an outbreak. By the same token, an unvaccinated child may have protection from a particular disease due his natural immunity so you cannot blame everything on the unvaccinated.

Originally Posted by Adam

Who says I'm leaving them around carelessly? I've watched several videos on the internet about storing gasoline soaked rags, and thought quite a bit about it, and come to my own beliefs. I think you need to look at all the facts, and stop being so biased. As I stated in my last post, even houses that are not full of gasoline soaked rags may have fire hazards of their own, and therefore those homeowners may be responsible for the outbreak of a fire. By the same token, even a house full of gasoline soaked rags may never catch fire, due to the natural care the homeowner takes with open flames, so you cannot blame everything on the people who choose to store boxes of gasoline soaked rags in their homes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is blaming you? Why do you keep talking about blame? No one is telling you what to do. In the new world, if you want to store gasoline soaked rags in your home because you see the benefits, then by all means do so. Each homeowner has to be responsible for their home. Obviously, if there is a fire it doesn't necessarily mean that your gasoline soaked rags caused it, but if someone gets hurt, and you aren't sure if your gasoline soaked rags were involved, you will have to live with this doubt because no one will be blaming you or questioning you.

I keep talking about blame because you keep talking about blame. Are you having trouble remembering which of your posts are about the real world and which ones are about the Golden Age?