A revolution in thought - Page 1260

thedoc · #**31476** 09-17-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because nobody thinks it's a genuine discovery, this whole thread is about what you do.

I know, and it's sick.

If it's sick, there is a possible cure, so Peacegirl you need to get to a mental health care professional and get help.

Adam · #**31477** 09-17-2013, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The teachings of religion put fear in her heart. She believed her children were doomed because of her evilness. In her distorted way of thinking she thought she was doing the right thing. She was not born evil Angakuk.

Please cite Angakuk claiming that Andrea Yates was "born evil".

thedoc · #**31478** 09-17-2013, 05:38 PM

Peacegirl, Am I starting to sound like thedoc?

peacegirl · #**31479** 09-17-2013, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump. Don't you want to tell me about the horrors of formaldehyde anymore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned formaldehyde previously. You are aware that we are exposed to formaldehyde every day in our normal environment and that our bodies produce it as well, right? Since you "know all the research"?

Do you know the comparisons between routine exposure amounts and vaccine amounts?

Quote:

HepB - Recombivax - 3 doses (birth, 1-2 mos. and 6-18 mos.) - 7.5μg/dose
DTaP - Infanrix - 5 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6 mos., 15-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Hib - ActHIB - 3 doses (2 mos., 4 mos. and 12-15 mos.) - 0.5μg/dose
IPV - IPOL - 4 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Influenza - Fluzone - 7 doses (6 mos., 12 mos. and yearly 2-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
HepA - Havrix - 2 doses (12 mos. and 6-18 mos. after first dose) - 100μg/dose

That's all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule for 0-6 years that contain formaldehyde. If a child got all of those doses all at once (which they never would), they would get a total of 1,824μg, or 1.824mg, of formaldehyde. A 3.2kg (~7lb) newborn with an average blood volume of 83.3mL/kg would naturally have, at any given time, about 575-862μg of formaldehyde circulating in their blood. By the time they are 6 years old (~46lb or 21kg), they'll naturally have 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood. Bear in mind that the formaldehyde from each shot will not build up in their bodies from shot to shot, as it is very rapidly (within hours) metabolized and eliminated as formate in the urine or breathed out as CO2.

So what's the most a child might get in a single office visit? That would probably be at their 6 month visit (when they are, on average, 16.5lbs or 7.5kg) with HepB, DTaP, IPV and flu, for a total of 307.5μg. That is about 160 times less than the total amount their body naturally produces every single day*. Compare that to the 428.4-1,516.4μg of formaldehyde in a single apple.

Now, some might try to claim that the formaldehyde in vaccines is different from the formaldehyde in your body, but they are wrong. Formaldehyde, whether it is in a vaccine or your body, consists of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom bound to a carbon atom. The chemical structure is the same. Harpocrates Speaks: Demystifying Vaccine Ingredients - Formaldehyde

It all sounds so airtight, doesn't it? It's a slam dunk, isn't it LadyShea? I am the one whose thinking is distorted, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. You were scaremongering about formaldehyde without any facts about formaldehyde. If you want to question the safety of formaldehyde using actual facts instead of hysteria, feel free to do so.

Lets look at the thimerosol scare to see if we can find similarities to the current formaldehyde alarmism. This "mercury" was pointed to as the cause so called vaccine related autism for years...and though the MMR never contained it, it was the most commonly cited vaccine as being associated with autism. When thimersol was removed from vaccines in 2000, autism rates didn't go down, they continued to rise and still do. So it obviously couldn't have been the thimerosol. Did the anti-vaxxers admit this? No, they just moved the goalposts and talk about adjuvants and multiple vaccines etc.

They probably didn't admit it because it may be a combination of adjuvants that reaches a tipping point. It could be that they are not convinced and admitting that this particular ingredient is innocuous (which we don't know yet in spite of what you have read) would be taken as defeat. Believe me, if they found out that there was no harm in vaccines, they would be the first to jump on board because they love their children as much as anyone. I am not claiming to know which ingredients could be dangerous. I am saying that every parent deserves the right to vaccinate or not to vaccinate because the scientists don't know for sure either, and if something goes wrong they are given a free pass.

Quote:

You won't hear the other side because you are determined to justify your stance on this matter. Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because in the case of formaldehyde alarmism, the "other side" is not using actual facts. How can parents make informed decisions when the information from one side is bad?

I don't believe it's bad information. Maybe it doesn't make autism rates go up, but these adjuvants are toxins and doctors don't know what the safe limit is. Doctors in the new world will be forced to be honest with themselves that they REALLY DON'T KNOW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I snipped the rest of your post because this one is specifically about formaldehyde. Let's break it down piece by piece and see if the "other side" has anything but hot air.

How about vaccine promoters? You are sure their information is pristine? This is not about one ingredient LadyShea. This is about the number and type of ingredients in combination that are injected into our children year after year. We don't know whether there is a direct or indirect association with these vaccines, which is why pro-vaccine advocates should not be so hasty in saying that the vaccines aren't causing serious problems in some children. Again, if they want to vaccinate their children, fine, but they can't tell me what I should do.

An epidemic of chronic disease and disability is plaguing America. Our children are themost highly vaccinated children in the world and they are among the most chronically ill and disabled.

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/4507NVIC11x17HIRES.aspx

Formaldehyde: Don’t Breathe or Touch – Injecting is Just Fine!

peacegirl · #**31480** 09-17-2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I choose to personalize impersonal laws. Accept it or not, but I believe we do not stand alone. I believe there is a reason for everything, and that we are gravitating to a new world. ... the fact that the laws of our nature are undeniable, and will change our world for the better.

This is another example of equivocation, then. You and Lessans both say the word God is a stand in for the laws of the Universe, but repeatedly use it as if it is a personal God

It doesn't matter. I like the metaphor. It gives me comfort, even though I don't believe in a personal God. I am being very clear so there's no equivocation.

peacegirl · #**31481** 09-17-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

Impersonal laws of the Universe don't have a will.

Will (noun)
[C or U] the mental power used to control and direct your thoughts and actions, or a determination to do something, despite any difficulties or opposition: From an early age she had a very strong will. [+ to infinitive] After six months in hospital she began to lose the will to live (= the desire and determination to stay alive).

C1 [S] what someone wants to happen:
It was God's will. Against their will (= although they did not want to), they were forced to hold a meeting. The government has failed to impose its will upon regional communities (= to make them do as it wants).

I know impersonal laws of the Universe don't have a will, but I use it in a rhetorical sense meaning that the laws that control our behavior will dictate when this time will come. The world was not ready to hear this discovery during my father's lifetime. If the world is ready now, it probably won't be difficult to bring this discovery to light. But if it's not ready, there will be roadblocks that will be difficult to get past. This is not up to me, as much as I would love to see the launching of this new world in my lifetime.

peacegirl · #**31482** 09-17-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

There is a story about 2 girls walking to school and they were taking their time, so much so that when they rounded the last corner a short distance from the bus stop, they saw the bus pulling out and disappear around the next corner when they got there. The one girl got right down on her knees to pray for some miracle to get her to school on time. The other girl was praying also, but she prayed while she was running toward the school.

Right. You cannot exclude the little girl's will from God's will. They are both one and the same.

peacegirl · #**31483** 09-17-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

Do you think you have eternity to postpone actually doing anything productive? How many weeks of zero progress have you had so far? It is very obvious to everyone but you that you're not at all serious about marketing this book.

I am very serious about marketing Spacemonkey, but I can't do it in a haphazard way. I am not quite ready to buckle down especially when I have no books to sell yet. It will be time enough when I get my books. I already emailed some philosophy professors but got no response, so that's out. I still don't understand why you are harping on this when you don't think the book has any value.

peacegirl · #**31484** 09-17-2013, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just saying that artificially injecting children with more and more vaccines is not necessarily the best way to go. Building a child's immune system naturally through good nutrition and good hygiene may end up being the better choice.

You need to study how the immune system works. Neither of those "builds it". Proper nutrition helps support it. Proper hygiene protects it from having to work so hard. It is built by exposure to antigens...which is why vaccines work.

I still say injecting all of these toxins into our children as a preventative is concerning because we really don't know the full ramifications of what we're doing, and to say we do is foolhardy.

peacegirl · #**31485** 09-17-2013, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

Do you think you have eternity to postpone actually doing anything productive? How many weeks of zero progress have you had so far? It is very obvious to everyone but you that you're not at all serious about marketing this book.

Your assumptions are screwed up Spacemonkey. Again, I don't know what your motivation is but it's not productive. Isn't that ironic?

Yes, it's highly ironic that you would complain about me not being productive. You really are a moron. How can you expect anyone to believe you are serious about marketing your book when you've been sitting on the brink of beginning marketing for several years now?

Back on ignore. :wave:

peacegirl · #**31486** 09-17-2013, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

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

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

Bumping since you ignored it, but then made the claim again

Here is the schedule.

Infants, Children, & Teens (birth - age 18) | Vaccines.gov

I gave you the schedule as well. Please list the vaccines and count them, as I did. Did you get 36 before age 2? Show your work!

Once again, you are a trivia groupie. This is trivial. Who cares whether I got the vaccine schedule perfect or not. THE POINT IS BEING IGNORED IN THAT THE SCHEDULE IS INCREASING. Let me clarify that each dose given (I believe) is considered one vaccine.

You made a claim (rather you accepted a claim someone else made) and I would like you to verify it is a factual claim.

If you are counting each dose of the same vaccine as a separate vaccine, then I would question the motive behind that interpretation (could it be wanting to up the number to seem excessive!! and DANGEROU$!!11)

I would think a better interpretation is one vaccine given over multiple doses. It doesn't make sense at all to count 3 doses of polio vaccine as 3 vaccines. If you eat four orange quarters have you eaten four oranges?

Yes, they are talking about doses. I did not say this to make it appear more dangerous. The rate of dosing doesn't pose any less of a threat. Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

peacegirl · #**31487** 09-17-2013, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Evil is doing something to someone that they do not want to be done to themselves. I do not want you to break into my home and steal from me. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to shoot me with a gun while I'm window shopping. That is a hurt to me. I do not want someone to jump a curve and kill me because they lost control with their car. That is a hurt to me. Is that enough, or do you need more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The term "evil" refers to doing something to someone with the intent to do harm. A mother is doing what is best for her baby, until her baby can take responsibility for himself. Evil in the context of the book only means a hurt, and a hurt is something one does not want done to himself. That is a fair definition. He also explains that evil and good are relative terms. You should know a lot about this term. Why don't you give me the Bible definition and we'll see if we can work with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...evil is used in one main context and that is when someone is being hurt by someone else without apparent justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Evil "in the context of the book" means something different than "evil" in some other context? And there is a "Biblical" definition that may differ even from that? And you've also modified your original definition of "evil" to include "intent to do harm" and to specifically require hurt done "to someone else" and "without apparent justification"? Interesting. Per this exchange:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Peacegirl, do you understand that there are many different sense of the words "good" and "evil"? That is, do you understand that people mean different things when they use those words in different contexts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a cop-out Adam.

...I had understood that, according to you, proposing that words (specifically, the words "good" and "evil") had different senses or meanings in different contexts or usages was a cop-out. Now I'm confused, since you seem to be explicitly admitting that words, including, at least, the word "evil", can have different meanings in different contexts, and that "evil", specifically, has a meaning "in the context of the book" that differs from its meaning in at least some other usages.

Evil and good are relative terms. Maybe I wasn't clear.

The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

It's also worth noting that the definition for "evil", "in the context of the book", that you are proposing here appears to differ from the one Lessans actually uses in his book. I'm pretty sure that nothing about the Motion of Life precludes choosing "a hurt". This is not your cue to explain about lesser evils and blah blah blah. This is simply the observation that the definition actually used in the book is not, simply, "a hurt", but a very specific sense of "a hurt" that requires reams of additional explanation and clarification.

Not really. A hurt to someone means that he doesn't want what is being done to him. The motion of life is essential to the understanding of why choosing to hurt someone with a first blow is impossible to consider under the changed conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

So, which is it? Do words (including "good" and "evil") mean different things in different contexts, or is that "a cop-out"?

They mean different things to different people. Most people agree on what these words mean in a general sense since the majority of the world agrees that being killed by someone is evil in comparison to not being killed.

Vivisectus · #**31488** 09-17-2013, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

Do you think you have eternity to postpone actually doing anything productive? How many weeks of zero progress have you had so far? It is very obvious to everyone but you that you're not at all serious about marketing this book.

Your assumptions are screwed up Spacemonkey. Again, I don't know what your motivation is but it's not productive. Isn't that ironic?

Yes, it's highly ironic that you would complain about me not being productive. You really are a moron. How can you expect anyone to believe you are serious about marketing your book when you've been sitting on the brink of beginning marketing for several years now?

Back on ignore. :wave:

Wait what? BACK on ignore? Damnit Peacegirl you are messing up my tracker with this. So he was ON ignore, then OF ignore again and now back in within... what a day or so?

peacegirl · #**31489** 09-17-2013, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The teachings of religion put fear in her heart. She believed her children were doomed because of her evilness. In her distorted way of thinking she thought she was doing the right thing. She was not born evil Angakuk.

Please cite Angakuk claiming that Andrea Yates was "born evil".

He didn't say that. I interpreted it that way.

Vivisectus · #**31490** 09-17-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

Yeah I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you either made that up or pulled it off a massively questionable website. Like whale.to

peacegirl · #**31491** 09-17-2013, 06:42 PM

[quote=LadyShea;1154439]Bump. Don't you want to tell me about the horrors of formaldehyde anymore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You mentioned formaldehyde previously. You are aware that we are exposed to formaldehyde every day in our normal environment and that our bodies produce it as well, right? Since you "know all the research"?

Do you know the comparisons between routine exposure amounts and vaccine amounts?

Quote:

HepB - Recombivax - 3 doses (birth, 1-2 mos. and 6-18 mos.) - 7.5μg/dose
DTaP - Infanrix - 5 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6 mos., 15-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Hib - ActHIB - 3 doses (2 mos., 4 mos. and 12-15 mos.) - 0.5μg/dose
IPV - IPOL - 4 doses (2 mos., 4 mos., 6-18 mos. and 4-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
Influenza - Fluzone - 7 doses (6 mos., 12 mos. and yearly 2-6 yrs.) - 100μg/dose
HepA - Havrix - 2 doses (12 mos. and 6-18 mos. after first dose) - 100μg/dose

That's all of the vaccines on the recommended schedule for 0-6 years that contain formaldehyde. If a child got all of those doses all at once (which they never would), they would get a total of 1,824μg, or 1.824mg, of formaldehyde. A 3.2kg (~7lb) newborn with an average blood volume of 83.3mL/kg would naturally have, at any given time, about 575-862μg of formaldehyde circulating in their blood. By the time they are 6 years old (~46lb or 21kg), they'll naturally have 3,562-5,342μg of formaldehyde in their blood. Bear in mind that the formaldehyde from each shot will not build up in their bodies from shot to shot, as it is very rapidly (within hours) metabolized and eliminated as formate in the urine or breathed out as CO2.

So what's the most a child might get in a single office visit? That would probably be at their 6 month visit (when they are, on average, 16.5lbs or 7.5kg) with HepB, DTaP, IPV and flu, for a total of 307.5μg. That is about 160 times less than the total amount their body naturally produces every single day*. Compare that to the 428.4-1,516.4μg of formaldehyde in a single apple.

Now, some might try to claim that the formaldehyde in vaccines is different from the formaldehyde in your body, but they are wrong. Formaldehyde, whether it is in a vaccine or your body, consists of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom bound to a carbon atom. The chemical structure is the same. Harpocrates Speaks: Demystifying Vaccine Ingredients - Formaldehyde

It all sounds so airtight, doesn't it? It's a slam dunk, isn't it LadyShea? I am the one whose thinking is distorted, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. You were scaremongering about formaldehyde without any facts about formaldehyde. If you want to question the safety of formaldehyde using actual facts instead of hysteria, feel free to do so.

Lets look at the thimerosol scare to see if we can find similarities to the current formaldehyde alarmism. This "mercury" was pointed to as the cause so called vaccine related autism for years...and though the MMR never contained it, it was the most commonly cited vaccine as being associated with autism. When thimersol was removed from vaccines in 2000, autism rates didn't go down, they continued to rise and still do. So it obviously couldn't have been the thimerosol. Did the anti-vaxxers admit this? No, they just moved the goalposts and talk about adjuvants and multiple vaccines etc.

They probably didn't admit it because it may be a combination of adjuvants that reaches a tipping point. Or it could be that they are not convinced and admitting that this particular ingredient may not be the culprit would be taken as defeat. Believe me, if they found out that there was no harm in vaccines, they would be the first to jump on board because the love their children as much as any parent who vaccinates. I am not claiming to know which ingredients could be dangerous. I am saying that every parent deserves the right to vaccinate or not to vaccinate because the scientists don't know for sure either, and if something goes wrong they are given a free pass.

Quote:

You won't hear the other side because you are determined to justify your stance on this matter. Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because in the case of formaldehyde alarmism, the "other side" is not using actual facts. How can parents make informed decisions when the information from one side is bad?

I don't believe it's bad information. Maybe it doesn't make autism rates go up, but these adjuvants are toxins and doctors don't know what the safe limit is. Doctors in the new world will be forced to be honest with themselves that they REALLY DON'T KNOW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I snipped the rest of your post because this one is specifically about formaldehyde. Let's break it down piece by piece and see if the "other side" has anything but hot air.

How about vaccine promoters? You are sure their information is pristine? This is not about one ingredient LadyShea. This is about the number and type of ingredients in combination that are injected into our children year after year. We don't know whether there is a direct or indirect association with these vaccines, which is why pro-vaccine advocates should not be so hasty in saying that the vaccines aren't causing serious problems in some children. Again, if they want to vaccinate their children, fine, but they can't tell me what I should do.

An epidemic of chronic disease and disability is plaguing America. Our children are themost highly vaccinated children in the world and they are among the most chronically ill and disabled.

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/4507NVIC11x17HIRES.aspx

Adam · #**31492** 09-17-2013, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They mean different things to different people.

Just to different people, or can the same people mean different things by them in different contexts?

peacegirl · #**31493** 09-17-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Most injuries occur after the first dose in prone children.

Yeah I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you either made that up or pulled it off a massively questionable website. Like whale.to

Nope, I was thinking back to the pertussis shot. Most children show signs of serious trouble after the second injection.

A VACCINATION HORROR STORY

peacegirl · #**31494** 09-17-2013, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They mean different things to different people.

Just to different people, or can the same people mean different things by them in different contexts?

In general evil means not desired or wanted. Good means desired or wanted. Give me an example of what you mean.

davidm · #**31495** 09-17-2013, 07:12 PM

Peacegirl is Eve in the Garden of Eden, only she has no Adam and the Garden is really the Garden of Blissful Ignorance.

The Genesis story has always been misrepresented. The bad guy is not the serpent, it's God. The apple is Knowledge.

Eve ate the apple, and then Adam ate it. God, being the evil character that he is, threw them out of the Garden in a snit because now Adam and Even could figure out stuff on their own and not be mindless drones subject to the incessant nonsense of Seymour Lessans.

Because Seymour is God, the apple is knowledge, and everyone here is the serpent. We tempt peacegirl to abandon her bully-boy idiot, that all-(un)knowing God named Seymour by offering her the apple of education, but unlike Eve in the bible story, she refuses to take the bait.

Peacegirl lives, and ever will live, in the Garden of Blissful Ignorance. She will not partake of the apple. She has constructed an elaborate fantasy world, a fact-free zone reminiscent of Fox News watchers or those children without immune systems who are encased in sterile rooms. She is in a sterile room, to prevent the germs and viruses of Thought from puncturing her illusions, from infecting her with messy knowledge.

The few people who still bother with this thread must know by now that peacegirl is absolutely uneducable. A very simple experiment -- bouncing a laser off the moon, which has been done for decades -- conclusively disproves Lessans' claims about light and sight. So do may other real-world examples, all of which have been spoon-fed to peacegirl in ways so simple that it has been like explaining things to her with a Dick-and-Jane reader. She doesn't care. She knows what the facts are, and that the facts disprove Lessans' claims, but she doesn't care. If the facts contradict the billiard hustler and aluminum-siding salesman, so much the worse for the facts.

Since everyone knows peacegirl is uneducable, that she is the Eve who refuses to eat the apple, what can be the point of this thread, after two and a half (!) years? To educate lurkers? I doubt very many lurkers are educated on Internet threads, though granted this thread has been rich with education, just not from peacegirl. To prevent Lessans' idiocy from spreading by combating it with facts? But she has not won a single convert in ten years on the Internet, so there is no danger of Lessanism, like Mormonism or Scientology, becoming a corrupted meme infecting the minds of millions. It's plainly a failure even as a scam.

So, why post? For Lulz? But imagine if this were real life. Some lady on a street corner, standing on a soapbox, is screaming nonsense that most everyone is ignoring. A few intrepid souls pester her with questions, receive duplicitous or incoherent replies, and then keep pestering her, knowing what the results will be. And then imagine this street-corner scene going on for nearly three years.

All that is left of this thread, IMO, is laughing at a crazy person. Would any of us do this in real life?

I think it's a serious ethical question to ponder, and I certainly don't exempt myself from it, since I'm as guilty as anyone in this regard, if "guilt" is the right word. It also opens a broader question of how people behave in real life vs. online. If we wouldn't laugh at a crazy person in real life, why do it online? IRL, if laughing at a crazy person might help her not be crazy, maybe we'd do it, but no one thinks that would happen. If doing so would keep others from craziness, maybe we'd do it, but no one thinks that would happen, either.

So why do it online if we wouldn't do it IRL?

peacegirl · #**31496** 09-17-2013, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you satisfied with having made no progress at all for yet another week, Peacegirl?

In view of eternity, one day isn't going to make or break anything. Whether I work everyday on marketing for the rest of my life, my efforts may or may not be fruitful, but in the end the new world will come about because this is God's will and his timing. :yup:

Do you think you have eternity to postpone actually doing anything productive? How many weeks of zero progress have you had so far? It is very obvious to everyone but you that you're not at all serious about marketing this book.

Your assumptions are screwed up Spacemonkey. Again, I don't know what your motivation is but it's not productive. Isn't that ironic?

Yes, it's highly ironic that you would complain about me not being productive. You really are a moron. How can you expect anyone to believe you are serious about marketing your book when you've been sitting on the brink of beginning marketing for several years now?

Back on ignore. :wave:

Wait what? BACK on ignore? Damnit Peacegirl you are messing up my tracker with this. So he was ON ignore, then OF ignore again and now back in within... what a day or so?

He doesn't learn. What can I say? :popcorn:

peacegirl · #**31497** 09-17-2013, 07:16 PM

This is a wonderful nonprofit. I hope people donate.

Muttville: Video

davidm · #**31498** 09-17-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He doesn't learn. What can I say? :popcorn:

O, irony!

peacegirl · #**31499** 09-17-2013, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl is Eve in the Garden of Eden, only she has no Adam and the Garden is really the Garden of Blissful Ignorance.

The Genesis story has always been misrepresented. The bad guy is not the serpent, it's God. The apple is Knowledge.

Eve ate the apple, and then Adam ate it. God, being the evil character that he is, threw them out of the Garden in a snit because now Adam and Even could figure out stuff on their own and not be mindless drones subject to the incessant nonsense of Seymour Lessans.

Because Seymour is God, the apple is knowledge, and everyone here is the serpent. We tempt peacegirl to abandon her bully-boy idiot, that all-(un)knowing God named Seymour by offering her the apple of education, but unlike Eve in the bible story, she refuses to take the bait.

Peacegirl lives, and ever will live, in the Garden of Blissful Ignorance. She will not partake of the apple. She has constructed an elaborate fantasy world, a fact-free zone reminiscent of Fox News watchers or those children without immune systems who are encased in sterile rooms. She is in a sterile room, to prevent the germs and viruses of Thought from puncturing her illusions, from infecting her with messy knowledge.

The few people who still bother with this thread must know by now that peacegirl is absolutely uneducable. A very simple experiment -- bouncing a laser off the moon, which has been done for decades -- conclusively disproves Lessans' claims about light and sight. So do may other real-world examples, all of which have been spoon-fed to peacegirl in ways so simple that it has been like explaining things to her with a Dick-and-Jane reader. She doesn't care. She knows what the facts are, and that the facts disprove Lessans' claims, but she doesn't care. If the facts contradict the billiard hustler and aluminum-siding salesman, so much the worse for the facts.

Since everyone knows peacegirl is uneducable, that she is the Eve who refuses to eat the apple, what can be the point of this thread, after two and a half (!) years? To educate lurkers? I doubt very many lurkers are educated on Internet threads, though granted this thread has been rich with education, just not from peacegirl. To prevent Lessans' idiocy from spreading by combating it with facts? But she has not won a single convert in ten years on the Internet, so there is no danger of Lessanism, like Mormonism or Scientology, becoming a corrupted meme infecting the minds of millions. It's plainly a failure even as a scam.

So, why post? For Lulz? But imagine if this were real life. Some lady on a street corner, standing on a soapbox, is screaming nonsense that most everyone is ignoring. A few intrepid souls pester her with questions, receive duplicitous or incoherent replies, and then keep pestering her, knowing what the results will be. And then imagine this street-corner scene going on for nearly three years.

All that is left of this thread, IMO, is laughing at a crazy person. Would any of us do this in real life?

I think it's a serious ethical question to ponder, and I certainly don't exempt myself from it, since I'm as guilty as anyone in this regard, if "guilt" is the right word. It also opens a broader question of how people behave in real life vs. online. If we wouldn't laugh at a crazy person in real life, why do it online? IRL, if laughing at a crazy person might help her not be crazy, maybe we'd do it, but no one thinks that would happen. If doing so would keep others from craziness, maybe we'd do it, but no one thinks that would happen, either.

So why do it online if we wouldn't do it IRL?

Boy did this give me a good laugh. :laugh:

Thank you David. I needed that. People should know by now why you are so against this knowledge. Because it contradicts your belief in afferent vision, which you hold very dear to your heart. People are not here just to question a crazy person. They are here because the book is intriguing. :yup:

But you are so defensive, you never gave it a chance.

thedoc · #**31500** 09-17-2013, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So why do it online if we wouldn't do it IRL?

Online everyone is anonymous, in real live you can confront the other person for real. If that other person is exhibiting irrational behavior there are things that can be done by interested 3rd parties, even if just reporting to authorities and letting events take their course. On the internet there is usually no way to know who you are dealing with, Peacegirl is the exception as someone could track her down if desired, but what do you do then, her posts are online, not screaming on a street corner. She could easily claim that she is playing with us or trolling, and then what can you do? we are only left with countering her posts with reality, I don't believe there is any way for anyone here to get her the help she needs.