A revolution in thought

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you discuss this issue with anyone who has studied the free will/determinism debate in any depth, it always boils down to good and evil, for that is the issue at stake, and why this debate is important to a lot of people. This was the part of the definition.

As far as I know, the specific definition of free will as the faculty to make moral choices is primarily associated with certain theodicies, but whatever. Like I said, it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so we can work with it.

All he said is that the words good and evil have reference to oneself.

...that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself.

Right. That's personal utility, and it is one common sense in which the words "good" and "evil" are used. However, it's not the same sense in which they are being used in the dictionary definition Lessans quotes for "free will", which is why his definition ends up being idiosyncratic after all. He's equivocating between the sense of "good" and "evil" used in the definition and the sense in which he is using those words.

But it IS a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. You cannot choose that which is the least preferable (according to your particular set of circumstances) in any situation where two or more alternatives are available.

This offers no explanation, just a definition that pretends to be an explanation. No, you cannot choose other than that which is most preferable because what is preferable is defined as what you would choose. Describing this as a compulsion to choose the most preferable option is as useless as claiming that opium makes people sleepy because of its soporific power. Or, as someone else said...

As I stated earlier, the fact that whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference does not explain a deeper truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

As far as I know, the specific definition of free will as the faculty to make moral choices is primarily associated with certain theodicies, but whatever. Like I said, it's not a completely idiosyncratic definition, so we can work with it.

It doesn't only relate to certain theodicies. If you look, you'll see that in every philosophical discussion related to this debate, the freedom to choose good over evil enters in to it.

All he said is that the words good and evil have reference to oneself.

...that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself.

Originally Posted by Adam

Right. That's personal utility, and it is one common sense in which the words "good" and "evil" are used. However, it's not the same sense in which they are being used in the dictionary definition Lessans quotes for "free will", which is why his definition ends up being idiosyncratic after all. He's equivocating between the sense of "good" and "evil" used in the definition and the sense in which he is using those words.

But his definition is not idiosyncratic. The fact that what we consider good is personal does not change or diminish the definition in any way.

But it IS a compulsion to choose that which is most preferable. You cannot choose that which is the least preferable (according to your particular set of circumstances) in any situation where two or more alternatives are available.

Originally Posted by Adam

This offers no explanation, just a definition that pretends to be an explanation. No, you cannot choose other than that which is most preferable because what is preferable is defined as what you would choose.

This definition is not pretending to be anything. It is describing what is true; that we cannot choose two options equally if there is a differential preference, which free will implies.

Originally Posted by Adam

Describing this as a compulsion to choose the most preferable option is as useless as claiming that opium makes people sleepy because of its soporific power. Or, as someone else said...

The only thing it proves is that we can only move in one direction when there is a difference in preference between two or more options, which makes will absolutely not free.

As I stated earlier, the fact that whatever one chooses is by definition one's preference does not explain a deeper truth.

Which you don't understand yet, and don't seem willing to wait before concluding that Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it is very different.

LOL, no, that is not remotely analogous.

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

Sometimes

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

Regardless of misattributing the quote, you do judge people's worth because you call people names on the basis of their ideology. You are not showing any respect whatsoever, which has everything to do with worth. You believe you're justified in downing people because they don't see things the way you do, but it is no different than calling someone names because his eyes are blue since he has no control of either. He can change his thought processes, yes, where he can't change his eye color, but to call him names because that's where he is at in his understanding of a topic is a very prejudiced stance to take, and don't deny it LadyShea. You judge harshly which is a give-a-way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

No one is advocating against taking advantage of man's God given ability to create vaccines if those vaccines cause no harm. Man is being forced to be like Socrates and admit that he may not know the truth after all, which removes a very serious problem because doctors could always excuse themselves if something went wrong.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Seven: The Wisdom of Socrates

p. 294 Today we have a different kind of problem
because the medical profession can injure or even kill with impunity
while doctors blame everything but themselves. There is absolutely
nothing today, that is, up until now, that can stop a doctor from
hurting others through this unconscious ignorance, consequently to
make himself believe that he knows even though he doesn’t he must
constantly resort to his title, this syllogistic reasoning concealed in
words as a confirmation of his knowledge which compels him to reply
to anyone who disagrees with what he does, “You are not a doctor,”
which means when translated, “I know what I’m doing because I am
the doctor.” However, this is not a criticism of the medical profession
because everything developed out of mathematical necessity and that
is how everything will continue to develop.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This definition is not pretending to be anything. It is describing what is true; that we cannot choose two options equally if there is a differential preference, which free will implies.

It's pretending to have any explanatory power whatsoever.

Why did I choose A over B? Because A was preferable to B.

Why was A preferable to B? Because it is what I would have chosen (and did, in fact choose).

But why did I choose it? Because it was preferable, of course!

No matter what I choose, we can retroactively say that it was the most preferable choice, by simple virtue of my having chosen it over some other. Nothing about this lends any explanatory power that would allow us to actually explain why I chose some given option, or to predict my choice in advance. All we can say is that whatever I choose, I will have chosen it.

Yes, it's true, but trivially so. We're no better able to explain why we make choices after we "discover" that every choice we make is, by definition, the choice that seemed preferable at the time than we were before that "discovery".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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".

It has everything to do with the changed conditions because people won't be putting out false information. The trend to be vegan is due to the fact that people believe it is a healthier lifestyle, but for some it may not be healthier and may actually cause harm. That is why children will be given an array of foods and let their bodies tell them what they need.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

What bad conditions would I be avoiding when atrocious misinformation would never be considered knowing that if a person was hurt by this misinformation, they would not be blamed for it? It would be a terrible position to be in, therefore it forces people to be honest not only with others, but with themselves for the very first time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

People will be measuring their comments based on science because, once again, they would not want to be responsible for putting other people at risk. They can if they want to, but under the changed conditions they would not want to.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

Parents will gather as much science based information as they can, so that they can make an informed choice, but science will also be compelled to put out only information that is factual. If their results are not conclusive they will let it be known because they also would never want to assume responsibility for causing someone to be worse off as a result.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's pretending to have any explanatory power whatsoever.

Why did I choose A over B? Because A was preferable to B.

Why was A preferable to B? Because it is what I would have chosen (and did, in fact choose).

But why did I choose it? Because it was preferable, of course!

No matter what I choose, we can retroactively say that it was the most preferable choice, by simple virtue of my having chosen it over some other. Nothing about this lends any explanatory power that would allow us to actually explain why I chose some given option, or to predict my choice in advance. All we can say is that whatever I choose, I will have chosen it.

Adam, we don't have to explain why someone may choose a particular option as more preferable. All that is necessary is to explain that we cannot choose that which is least preferable. You think, based on the conventional definition, that there has to be some predictive power, but there doesn't have to be to prove that man's will is not free. You have yet to understood why this is extremely significant, because you don't understand the other part of this equation, which holds the key. The fact that man's will is not free is the key to the first door. Remember there is another key that opens the door to this discovery? Well we're not there yet so why are you jumping to premature conclusions?

p. 43 “Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and
your second discovery?”

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut out
his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

“I thought you killed him already.”

“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the
whole world can see he is dead.”

“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”

“That’s absolutely true.”

“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever
discovered.”

“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However,
before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man
Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific
observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical
reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage
that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, it's true, but trivially so.

It is not trivial at all; it's trivial in the way you're thinking about it. Whatever we choose, we choose. So what? But that's not all there is to it.

Originally Posted by Adam

We're no better able to explain why we make choices after we "discover" that every choice we make is, by definition, the choice that seemed preferable at the time than we were before that "discovery".

Once again, we don't have to understand the motivation as to why someone chose what he did. There could be a thousand reasons based on his environment, heredity, experiences, etc, but this is unimportant at this point. Are you willing to listen to the rest, or is your mind already made up that he has nothing of value to offer? Your answer will determine whether it's worth it for me to continue conversing with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.

It is true people have different opinions on this because there are no guarantees either way. I don't know what is the best course of action, and never would claim to know. I don't want to be responsible for giving someone bad advice, and be excused for it. All any parent can do is gather the facts and make a decision based on what he believes is the safest way to go. If a parent makes the wrong decision, at least it was his decision to make and no one would blame him for this, because they don't know either and would never pretend to know, especially when it comes to a child's unique genetic structure.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

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.

Nirvana Fallacy.

[Stephen Maturin]

Oh man, I liked the original version of that post better, the one where you wrote that I was being "too intellectual." I've never been accused of THAT before.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

We agreed on something! Huzzah!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? Conscience requires justification, that is true.

I was talking about Lessans' claim that conscience only operates at 10%-30% capacity in what he called a "free will" environment and the reasons he believed that to be the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can conscience impose consequences when conscience gets stronger when there are no consequences to anticipate from the outside?

There would be no consequences to conscience operating at 100% capacity as opposed to the current 10%-30% capacity? Lessans disagrees!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it reduces us to a state of freedom,

But there is no freedom.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

for all of us deserve the right to enjoy life without the restrictions that man-made laws demand us to follow?

Please state with particularity the nature and source of this particular right, together with all facts and arguments supporting the contention that we "deserve" it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And guess what, we get greater compliance because these are God's laws, not man's.

Since you're using God as shorthand for laws of nature, your statement boils down to "we get greater compliance because these are Nature's Laws' laws, not man's." Clunkiness aside, the notion of "complying" with a law of nature is nonsensical, regardless of whether you view such laws as prescriptive or merely descriptive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you not understand this, or do I need to explain this to you in greater detail?

Please don't trouble yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with "must".

Oh really?

Originally Posted by Lessans

What is the two-sided equation and what is the first discovery?

It is simply this. I must hold myself responsible for doing to you what I know you must excuse. (Emphasis added.)

I don't know how I can be expected to continue this discussion when no one is reading the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I agree; nothing can be justified without justification. By definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you will know that.

Knowledge, according to the traditional epistomological definition, is (at least) justified true belief. We can't know that no one would ever blame us for harming them because, according to Lessans himself, that simply isn't true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What isn't true?

It isn't true that no one would ever blame us for harming them. According to Lessans, quite the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that even mean, and why are you trying to confuse the discussion with your verbiage that no one could possibly understand.

Oh man, now I've gotta post a poll to determine whether anyone understood what I wrote.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could it be you are not sure of your own argument? Just asking.

Sure in what sense? I understand the argument well. It is, after all, my argument.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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

Easy does 'er there, Tex. Lessans is the one who said "My day will come," "my day" meaning the new world.

But hey, fine; I'll accept for discussion's sake that the Golden Age has nothing to do with Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, and this is where you're having a problem.

Sure, but only because it's highly problematic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a hurt occur if it is prevented[?]

How can a hurt be prevented if the condition precedent necessary for prevention doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So your options were: (1) explain in a coherent step-by-step fashion exactly where and how I went wrong; or (2) condescending, school-marmish hysteria. That you chose the latter speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are not going to get away with this.

Get away with what? I'm not the one declining to answer questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The idea of a transition period makes perfect sense. I'm not questioning that. My questions are: (1) why is signing the no-blame contract a "necessary condition," as you've said it is; and (2) how does signing a document get us over the formidable hurdle posed by the conflicting claims that (a) blame and retaliation are justified after a harm is delivered and (b) we "know" that we'd never be blamed after a harm is delivered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your spoilers are funny

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but anyone who has a brain will question your worldview.

I'm not and never have been a navel-gazer; I have neither the time nor the inclination to bother with "worldviews."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't understand the mechanism that allows us to see in real time,

Yes, exactly like I don't understand the mechanism of how someone on Earth can jump off a building and just keep sailing upward until s/he ends up in space.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

so it's easy to laugh.

On that we agree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now I will put you back on ignore;

Pretend Ignore is mother's milk to me.

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Nirvana Fallacy.

..........

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Nirvana Fallacy.

How do you know this is a nirvana fallacy when you don't know what the discovery is? Isn't that a little presumptuous? You're assuming it's a fallacy because it's an extraordinary claim, which is poor reasoning.

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

He didn't make any assumptions, so this does not apply.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another improbable solution that could in some way be better.

There is a real world solution and it's not implausible just because it seems unrealistic, so this doesn't apply either.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I meant to say was that namecalling and the verbal abuse squelches the desire [on my part] to carry on a meaningful conversation.

We're in agreement here.

That's smart. I should have done that from day one.

I left here and people followed me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. However, you had some time with those forums prior to people from here showing up there. Were you enjoying those discussions?

No, but that's beside the point. It got much worse when Davidm, Spacemonkey, and thedoc showed up. They took over the thread. It was a nightmare.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What if you found a group that agreed with you or had a different culture than , would those that followed you have been tolerated or allowed to "take hostage" your thread, or ridiculed out of there as outsiders? Maybe you should seek those groups that won't be welcoming to the type of mean people you think we are.

That's the problem, there doesn't seem to be any in-between. People are either allowed to talk garbage, or it's moderated which is too restrictive, and the woo websites are distasteful to me because their ideas are not subjected to any kind of scientific scrutiny. That isn't even what I want.

I would have loved to go to another group (there are quite a few out there), but spiders would have given people clues as to where I was, and I would never tolerate having people from this group take my thread hostage like they did in project reason. Anyway, I'm going to market soon and won't have time for this silliness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are as free as you to discuss at open discussion forums. Again if you find, or even start, a group that thinks as you do on "bullying" and "squelching speech" etc., then anyone that followed you would be the outsiders, right?

It's not about being an outsider; it's about being polite instead of barging into a thread knowing that the purpose of my leaving this group was to discuss this discovery with other people, not to be embarrassed by the disgusting comments of people that have a vendetta against me.

Nobody is saying you're helpless and that it isn't within your power to own your experience, but words are what we use online, and if those words are foul, the experience is not enjoyable and will compel people, of their own free will (I know David has no clue what I mean by that), to leave. Then you'll wait until the next sucker joins this "freethought" group so you can use him as fodder.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The nature of free speech is such that everyone can say what they want It's not my responsibility to ensure others enjoy their time or whatever. And some people do enjoy their time here at or it wouldn't exist and have members.

I never said it was your responsibility. I only said that it limits the conversation for a lot of people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The victims of the mob, once they understand the game, do eventually leave and never come back.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, people that do not like it here can and should leave and never come back. You, however, were actually not talking about them. You were talking about alleged people who stay here and participate while actively avoiding being a target, and not daring to cross lines, out of self preservation. Who are those people?

I don't know who these people are, but I believe they are out there. I feel there would be more participation in this thread if there wasn't such animosity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Asserted and defined as such, but not proven.

It is an undeniable observation. That is proof enough. The scientific method is not the only way that something can be proven true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Well, you are right in saying that "Jesus forgives trespassers who confess their sins" but how is that the same thing as saying that Jesus doesn't "count how many times it took for someone to get it right"? For all you know he may keep count of all those failed attempts to get it right and of all the times he has forgiven the same.

From what I gathered, if you repent, your trespasses are no longer remembered. Jesus doesn't keep tabs; your debt is paid and the slate is clean.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As for, "Jesus forgives our misgivings", I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you even know what you meant by that?

Jesus forgives our misdeeds (better word) as long as he knows we are being sincere in our effort to correct our mistakes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No one is doing that. They are using Lessans' errors as proof that his book has no merit.

You can't even tell me you know what those imaginary errors are.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

They are using your mistakes as proof that your arguments in defense of his book have no merit. Can you see the difference?

Being histrionic or sullen or whatever adjective suits your fancy does not mean my argument in defense of the book is wrong. As for the few mistakes I admitted to, that should not be a reason to dismiss my entire defense of the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I should be respected for my right as a parent to do what I feel is best.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Since your children are all grown you pretty much have no parental rights left.

True, but I'm speaking on behalf of all parents. I was making a generalization.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BEWARE OF MAD DOGS.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And Englishmen. Don't forget the Englishmen.

Thanks for reminding me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, it has ruined any chance for a fair and enjoyable conversation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I, for one, am finding this conversation fairly enjoyable.

I'm sure you're enjoying the lulz.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, in other words, no, you don't understand how vaccines work. And you certainly don't understand how the immune system works.

Figured as much.

You can argue with me until the cows come home, but in the new world you would never want to coerce a parent to inject their child with a vaccine for fear that you might end up being responsible for causing a child's demise or injury. Right now there are all kinds of justifications doctors and enforcement agencies can use if something should go wrong. Government can shift their responsibility and say it wasn't the vaccine that caused the child's death, which is why conscience does not work at full throttle.

At first glance, the cover of this book might seem graphic. If you count the needles in the infant, you will come up with eighteen. If you count the needles in the background, you will arrive at 63. This is only half the story. Today, according to the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule, a child receives 36 shots containing a total of 126 vaccines from birth through six years of age. This is quadruple the number of vaccines a child received in the 1980’s. In 1983 a child received only 10 shots containing 30 vaccines. Could this quadrupling of the vaccination schedule be responsible for the drastic increase in childhood disorders we are seeing today?

Today, one in five children suffers from asthma, one in six children is diagnosed with a learning disability, one in 150 children is diagnosed with autism, one in 250 children has some form of arthritis, and one in every 400 children has diabetes.

Are we trading chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and other harmless childhood illnesses for a lifetime of chronic disease? Are vaccines really responsible for the decline in infectious disease? Were polio and smallpox really eradicated through mandatory mass immunization programs? Or is there a chance the vaccines were really the culprit for the spread of these infectious diseases? Can a contaminated polio vaccine be responsible for the current AIDS pandemic we are seeing today?

Ever wonder what is in that shot your child gets at the pediatrician’s office? Ever thought about how that vaccine is made? Is the dosage safe for your child? Surely it is safe—the CDC claims it is. And by the way, these vaccines have been studied for their long-term effects regarding any carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive potential, right? You’ll be shocked to learn the answer! Is there a chance those well-baby checkups are really poisoning your child? Do vaccines really contain all those chemicals and cause all those diseases that are listed on the cover of this book? Yes, and Yes.

The chemicals contained in these vaccines are only the tip of the iceberg, and the diseases listed are only a fraction of the conditions these vaccines can possibly cause.

Oh sure, you are probably thinking—there is no way that can be true. Well, according to the vaccine package inserts, these poisons are in the vaccines, and the listed side effects are in fact listed in these inserts as adverse reactions. You will never hear a pediatrician discussing this with the parents who are about to get their child jabbed.

Any parent considering having children—or who already does—needs to be properly informed of the risks and the benefits of compulsory vaccination. This book is the other half of the story that you will not hear from the pediatrician or from the CDC.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does she think we take into our body every day just from breathing and eating and having skin and stuff?

Comparing compulsory vaccinations to breathing stuff? Eating? Having skin? You can't be for real.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well, according to the vaccine package inserts, these poisons are in the vaccines, and the listed side effects are in fact listed in these inserts as adverse reactions. You will never hear a pediatrician discussing this with the parents who are about to get their child jabbed.

that is simply not true, pediatricians always talk about the possible risks and side effects of any medication. your information is about 40 years out of date.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Comparing compulsory vaccinations

Straw man fallacy, typical of Lessans, Peacegirl, simply untrue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh man, I liked the original version of that post better, the one where you wrote that I was being "too intellectual." I've never been accused of THAT before.

We agreed on something! Huzzah!

No we did not agree. The corollary Thou Shall Not Blame can only be applied under very specific conditions, or it could make matters worse.

p. 64 Therefore, it should be
clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that
you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that
man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to
follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us, something that
investigators like Durant have never done because the implications
prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule. The fact
that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get
greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man
understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock
me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for
hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood we will be compelled
to continue living in the world of free will, otherwise, we would only
make matters worse for ourselves.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? Conscience requires justification, that is true.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I was talking about Lessans' claim that conscience only operates at 10%-30% capacity in what he called a "free will" environment and the reasons he believed that to be the case.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There would be no consequences to conscience operating at 100% capacity as opposed to the current 10%-30% capacity? Lessans disagrees!

The knowledge that there would be no consequences presents consequences that no one wants to ever face, which prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary in a free will environment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it reduces us to a state of freedom,

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But there is no freedom.

What are you talking about? There will be total freedom, but the freedom comes with responsibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

for all of us deserve the right to enjoy life without the restrictions that man-made laws demand us to follow?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Please state with particularity the nature and source of this particular right, together with all facts and arguments supporting the contention that we "deserve" it.

The Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And guess what, we get greater compliance because these are God's laws, not man's.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Since you're using God as shorthand for laws of nature, your statement boils down to "we get greater compliance because these are Nature's Laws' laws, not man's." Clunkiness aside, the notion of "complying" with a law of nature is nonsensical, regardless of whether you view such laws as prescriptive or merely descriptive.

You are right; this is not about compliance. I'm not complying with the laws of my nature; I have no choice but to live these laws because my nature demands that I act within that nature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with "must".

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh really?

Really? When you say "must" it sounds like a demand. You have no choice but to hold yourself accountable when no one is blaming you because you can't shift what is your responsibility. I don't know if you understand this.

Originally Posted by Lessans

What is the two-sided equation and what is the first discovery?

It is simply this. I must hold myself responsible for doing to you what I know you must excuse. (Emphasis added.)

As long as what you are doing is a first blow; if it is not, you are justified in striking back.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

I agree; nothing can be justified without justification. By definition.

And if there is no justification for what one is contemplating, then the act cannot be performed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you will know that.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Knowledge, according to the traditional epistomological definition, is (at least) justified true belief. We can't know that no one would ever blame us for harming them because, according to Lessans himself, that simply isn't true.

Where did he say that? Of course we would know that no one would blame us for harming them, which is the advance justification to hurt others that is now being removed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What isn't true?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It isn't true that no one would ever blame us for harming them. According to Lessans, quite the opposite is true.

I don't know where you got this notion. In a free will society we are well aware that we will be blamed and punished for wrongdoing, but not when we become citizens of the new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that even mean, and why are you trying to confuse the discussion with your verbiage that no one could possibly understand.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh man, now I've gotta post a poll to determine whether anyone understood what I wrote.

You are presupposing that people will still desire to hurt others even when this law is in effect, which would then justify retaliation, but this is completely erroneous.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

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

This is not Lessans' decree. This is an extension of his reasoning which does not belong to him. Why do you keep making it appear that this is about Lessans?

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

Easy does 'er there, Tex. Lessans is the one who said "My day will come," "my day" meaning the new world.

Meaning that his discovery will be validated one day, but probably not in our lifetime unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But hey, fine; I'll accept for discussion's sake that the Golden Age has nothing to do with Lessans.

So then please stop with the derogatory comments about Lessantonian Grand Society and the Sacred Book. You will one day regret how you put him down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, and this is where you're having a problem.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Sure, but only because it's highly problematic.

Only if you don't understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a hurt occur if it is prevented[?]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

How can a hurt be prevented if the condition precedent necessary for prevention doesn't exist?

But it will exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

So your options were: (1) explain in a coherent step-by-step fashion exactly where and how I went wrong; or (2) condescending, school-marmish hysteria. That you chose the latter speaks volumes.

I'm trying to show you that under the changed conditions, you can only move in one direction because your will is not free to hurt others who have not hurt you first. This would be a first blow which cannot be justified. You cannot do it. You are checkmated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you are not going to get away with this.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Get away with what? I'm not the one declining to answer questions.

The only reason an agreement needs to be made is to get this new world started. You have to have a transitional period where people promise not to blame anyone for anything.

p. 174 There can be no punishment
should the new citizen break this agreement and not turn the other
cheek during this time of transition, but how is it possible for him to
break this or any agreement when he knows there will be no blame for
striking this first blow. This needs clarification.
When any agreement is made in the new world, the people who are
a party to it are saying, “I am satisfied with this agreement and will
never blame you should you violate it.” If you don’t want to become
a citizen of this new world, don’t want to receive this guarantee, don’t
want to agree never to blame, then you don’t have to sign this
agreement and will continue living in your present environment. But
should you sign this agreement, how is it possible for you to desire
breaking it by not turning the other cheek when turning the other
cheek offers greater satisfaction as this is the kind of punishment
those who strike a first blow cannot tolerate. The truck driver wanted
to be punished for doing what he knows was his responsibility because
this would give him greater satisfaction.

As was explained in Chapter
Two, “The knowledge that there will be no consequences presents
consequences that are still worse, making it impossible to consider this
hurt as a preferable alternative.” However, in order for the new citizen
not to be blamed by his government, and in order for his government
not to be blamed by the governments of other nations, the political
and military leaders of the world must become our first citizens. How
is it possible for political leaders to stop blaming other political leaders
and the people in their country unless the leaders have received the
guarantee and signed the agreement?

Therefore, the world leaders
must take their examination first because it is only by the new citizen
knowing he will never be blamed by the government or the laws of his
country no matter what he does to hurt others that will prevent him
from desiring to do that for which punishment came into existence,
taking for granted, of course, that the other source of justification,
being made to go below his standard of living, has already been
removed. This will prevent the possibility of further wars because the
very people who have the power to start one will be stopped by the
guarantee which denies them any justification and by their realization
that there will be no retaliation by those who must turn the other
cheek for their satisfaction.

When the time arrives for the leaders of
the world to sign this agreement, which will be done simultaneously,
they will be extremely happy and anxious for this new world to begin.
But remember, ironically enough, under the changed conditions the
leaders are prevented from hurting others not because there will be no
retaliation, but primarily because they will get greater satisfaction in
being a part of this fantastic new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The idea of a transition period makes perfect sense. I'm not questioning that. My questions are: (1) why is signing the no-blame contract a "necessary condition," as you've said it is; and (2) how does signing a document get us over the formidable hurdle posed by the conflicting claims that (a) blame and retaliation are justified after a harm is delivered and (b) we "know" that we'd never be blamed after a harm is delivered.

It is a necessary condition to move from a free will society where blame and punishment is the cornerstone of civilization to a no blame society where no blame or punishment is the cornerstone of civilization. People have to make a commitment not to blame as a starting point. They have to hold themselves accountable to their promise that they will not blame in turn for the guarantee. You have to remember that we are talking about prevention here; not after the fact. You are assuming that hurt will still occur, and that we're going to have to turn the other cheek after you hurt us, but the advance knowledge that we will turn the other cheek because we now know that your will is not free, is the very thing that prevents your desire to strike a first blow. It's paradoxical, but this is how it works.

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."

That is true; it is efferent vision that allows us to see the object in real time because light is a condition only. It does not bring the image to us through space/time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

that is simply not true, pediatricians always talk about the possible risks and side effects of any medication. your information is about 40 years out of date.

Then the next step is making it voluntary. Compulsory vaccines are about 40 years out of date.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Well, you are right in saying that "Jesus forgives trespassers who confess their sins" but how is that the same thing as saying that Jesus doesn't "count how many times it took for someone to get it right"? For all you know he may keep count of all those failed attempts to get it right and of all the times he has forgiven the same.

From what I gathered, if you repent, your trespasses are no longer remembered. Jesus doesn't keep tabs; your debt is paid and the slate is clean.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As for, "Jesus forgives our misgivings", I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you even know what you meant by that?

Jesus forgives our misdeeds (better word) as long as he knows we are being sincere in our effort to correct our mistakes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No one is doing that. They are using Lessans' errors as proof that his book has no merit.

You can't even tell me you know what those imaginary errors are.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

They are using your mistakes as proof that your arguments in defense of his book have no merit. Can you see the difference?

Being histrionic or sullen or whatever adjective suits your fancy does not mean my argument in defense of the book is wrong. As for the few mistakes I admitted to, that should not be a reason to dismiss my entire defense of the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I should be respected for my right as a parent to do what I feel is best.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Since your children are all grown you pretty much have no parental rights left.

True, but I'm speaking on behalf of all parents. I was making a generalization.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BEWARE OF MAD DOGS.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And Englishmen. Don't forget the Englishmen.

Thanks for reminding me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, it has ruined any chance for a fair and enjoyable conversation.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I, for one, am finding this conversation fairly enjoyable.

I'm sure you're enjoying the lulz.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Comparing compulsory vaccinations to breathing stuff? Eating? Having skin? You can't be for real.

She's not comparing vaccination, compulsory or otherwise, to breathing, eating, etc. She's comparing the number of novel antigens encountered during vaccination to the number of novel antigens encountered just by breathing, eating, etc.

[The Lone Ranger]

Apparently, peacegirl wasn't paying attention when it was pointed out that you can be exposed to literally millions of novel antigens in a single day.


But being exposed to a few dozen novel antigens over the course of 2 years or so is dangerous, because the immune system might not be able to handle so many.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Adam, we don't have to explain why someone may choose a particular option as more preferable. All that is necessary is to explain that we cannot choose that which is least preferable.

There is absolutely no need to explain that. It's baked into the definition. You can ask around, but I'm pretty sure no one needs this explained to them.

You think, based on the conventional definition.../

Hold up. There's a "conventional" definition, and it differs from Lessans' definition? You've assured me - repeatedly - that Lessans' definition is not idiosyncratic. Now you're telling me that his definition is not the "conventional" one.

Let's make up our minds, here. Was Lessans using conventional definitions or not?

..that there has to be some predictive power, but there doesn't have to be to prove that man's will is not free.

There has to be some sort of explanatory power in order to rescue this mess from triviality, and there is none. I don't know where "prov[ing] that ...will is not free" came from. We weren't talking about that right now. We were talking about whether or not the observation that the definition of choice precludes choosing anything other than one's preference is anything but trivial. You haven't offered any arguments here that don't boil down to either "Is so!" or the insistence that it's really important to accept this because it's crucial to Lessans' "proof" that will is not free, and that's only the first step in Lessantlaogy.

Again, his entire argument consists of, first, idiosyncratically defining "free will" such that the ability to choose something other than our own preference is essential to it and, second, the tautologically true observation that, by definition, we cannot choose other than our own preference. We were discussing the second bit.

Here's the thing, though. Just because you might choose to define free will such that it requires squaring a circle, you don't just get to point to the impossibility of doing so and declare victory. At best, you've proven that Lessantological Free Will does not exist. Since no one else actually gives a damn about Lessantological Free Will, no one really cares. That's the problem with idiosyncratic definitions.