A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

What does a figure skater do when she draws her arms in?

During a spin?

Apparently the figure skater needs to understand the laws of physics, otherwise nothing will happen. But if the figure skater understands enough physics then she will spin faster.

(FYI, if she is standing still or skating straight, nothing will happen, except she will draw her arms in.)

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

During a spin?

Apparently the figure skater needs to understand the laws of physics, otherwise nothing will happen. But if the figure skater understands enough physics then she will spin faster.

Yes, if there is enough physics in the brain she will spin faster. Are you drunk?

(FYI, if she is standing still or skating straight, nothing will happen, except she will draw her arms in.)

No shit.

FYI, the correct answer is "She applies the law of conservation of angular momentum.".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What does a figure skater do when she draws her arms in?

This law of nature doesn't force her to draw her arms in, but she is choosing to work with it to allow her to spin faster. By the same token, once we understand that man does not have free will, we can choose to use this law to our advantage by working with it, not against it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

No shit.

You were not very clear what the circumstances were in your post, when she drew her arms in.

But yes, you are an ungracious ignorant shit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

FYI, the correct answer is "She applies the law of conservation of angular momentum.".

I believe that the law of conservation of angular momentum is part of physics.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So before I respond, can we pin down exactly what you are talking about? Because when I come up with stuff that shows you that there are ways to do harm without justification, you do a quick switch and pretend you were talking about something else.

So some of it is yours, some of it are your fathers? You are not an editor, really, but a co-author?

I think it would be more accurate to describe peacegirl as a redactor.

Redaction is a form of editing in which multiple source texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly to make a single document. Often this is a method of collecting a series of writings on a similar theme and creating a definitive and coherent work.

<snip>

On occasion, the persons performing the redaction (the redactors) add brief elements of their own. The reasons for doing so are varied and can include the addition of elements to adjust the underlying conclusions of the text to suit the redactor's opinion...

Except for the 'coherent' part the above seems to describe pretty accurately what peacegirl has done with Lessans' work.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, if there is enough physics in the brain she will spin faster. Are you drunk?

No shit.

FYI, the correct answer is "She applies the law of conservation of angular momentum.".

Does the skater need to know that this is what he/she is doing in order for the law to take effect?

[Vivisectus]

You gave no example where a person could do harm without a justification. You are making the case that one's conscience will not work the way Lessans described and that it will give people a perfect reason to take advantage of others without having to worry about consequences. Do you understand why the transition into the new world is necessary? No you don't. All you're doing is picturing what would happen if right now we removed all blame. It wouldn't work because other conditions have to be in place worldwide. That would be like going back to the Wild West.

I am doing no such thing - I am doing what you told me to do: find examples where the principle does not work. It took less than a minute: when someone does something that IS a harm according to the person it happens to, but not to the person doing it.

For instance example is refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds. I might feel I am doing you a favor by saving your soul. You might prefer a vastly greater chance of living.

But you could think of a great many. I could take your booze away because I feel you are hurting yourself with it. You could feel that this is a hurt because you feel you are in control of your drinking.

And that is just one type.

I added some examples but I did not touch the concept. I am not the co-author. I can't take any credit.

There are no examples in that paragraph, actually. Not that that matters: I am sure I was mistaken when I assumed it was you adding the qualification. Not about the timing tho.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am doing no such thing - I am doing what you told me to do: find examples where the principle does not work. It took less than a minute: when someone does something that IS a harm according to the person it happens to, but not to the person doing it.

You think you have found examples where the principles don't work, but you haven't. There is no way you can know that this discovery is wrong (as you feel so confident about) when you haven't even grasped the principles. This is the arrogance that I can't handle. I can no longer take the time to engage with you. Your sarcastic answers leave me with a horrible taste in my mouth. I just can't do it anymore.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For instance example is refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds. I might feel I am doing you a favor by saving your soul. You might prefer a vastly greater chance of living.

This is coming from a vantage point that is so far removed from the world that Lessans speaks of, that it has no value whatsoever. When man has been delivered from the very evil he has been praying to God to remove, what is the need for religion when God fulfills that very prayer?

But you could think of a great many. I could take your booze away because I feel you are hurting yourself with it. You could feel that this is a hurt because you feel you are in control of your drinking.

And that is just one type.

You are so confused, I refuse to continue with your better than thou attitude before you even begin understand why all hurt must come to an end as a result of this discovery. I really don't care to discuss anything more with you Vivisectus.

I added some examples but I did not touch the concept. I am not the co-author. I can't take any credit.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are no examples in that paragraph, actually. Not that that matters: I am sure I was mistaken when I assumed it was you adding the qualification. Not about the timing tho.

Again, you are a slick guy who speaks in confused English where a person ends up saying to himself, "Huh?" What did I miss? Just be clear for a change and say what you mean instead of playing word games that would make an English teacher's head spin. You have nothing on Lessans, absolutely nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Does the skater need to know that this is what he/she is doing in order for the law to take effect?

No, the results of this knowledge do not necessarily depend on the understanding as to why it works. Lessans already addressed this but you never took the time to read it.

[Spacemonkey]

Hey, Peacegirl. Have you worked out yet what traveling your photons (at the retina at 12:00) have done, or when they could have been located at the Sun?

Or have you worked out how harms resulting from rational self interest are somehow going to be magically prevented by your changed conditions, despite not being covered by any of his three justifications?

Dumbass.

[Vivisectus]

This is coming from a vantage point that is so far removed from the world that Lessans speaks of, that it has no value whatsoever. When man has been delivered from the very evil he has been praying to God to remove, what is the need for religion when God fulfills that very prayer?

But it is the principle that is supposed to keep it from happening. You are saying "In a world where this principle works, it would not come up."

Well, duh! That is because you assume in advance it works. But what we are supposedly doing is investigating IF it could work.

We have already found some pretty good examples of where it would not.

You are so confused, I refuse to continue with your better than thou attitude before you even begin understand why all hurt must come to an end as a result of this discovery. I really don't care to discuss anything more with you Vivisectus.

Sure, you can run away when it gets too obvious you are sticking your head in the sand. It won't change anything though.

Again, you are a slick guy who speaks in confused English where a person ends up saying to himself, "Huh?" What did I miss? Just be clear for a change and say what you mean instead of playing word games that would make an English teacher's head spin. You have nothing on Lessans, absolutely nothing.

I wasn't saying anything very complicated - what exactly did you find confusing?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the results of this knowledge do not necessarily depend on the understanding as to why it works. Lessans already addressed this but you never took the time to read it.

Then why did Lessans say everyone has to take a test to prove they understand papa's poo poo?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the results of this knowledge do not necessarily depend on the understanding as to why it works. Lessans already addressed this but you never took the time to read it.

The question was not addressed to you. You would do well to keep silent when adults are talking.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Then why did Lessans say everyone has to take a test to prove they understand papa's poo poo?

That way lies lulz. Passing a test on the "two-sided equation" is a sine qua non for citizenship, but according to peacegirl, no one has ever understood the "two sided equation" in her fourteen years of presenting it on the Internet. (Bonus lulz - peacegirl herself plainly has no idea what her father was trying to say.)

[ChuckF]

Lately a 1971 volume has come into my possession.

It tells the story of Larry, a 7th-grade educated pool shark (who has no PhD, we are frequently reminded) who has made several discoveries that will bring about the Golden Age, including that man does not have five senses because the eyes are not a sense organ ("...if a child at birth was placed in a sound proof room with his eyelids removed (this can be scientifically tested) - and kept alive for 50 years, if possible, on a steady flow of intravenous glucose without allowing any stimuli to strike the other 3 organs of sense . . . "), and that man's will is not free, and that thou shall not blame, etc. etc. The consequence of this is that "all war must end between 1975 and 1980." This has many implications, which seem to revolve primarily around the sexual relationship: pre-marital and marital sexual relations, adultery, divorce, and allied themes.

Larry relates his findings to his acquaintances Jim and Charlie, at least one of whom has a PhD (which Larry, we are reminded again, does not have.) Larry's findings are presented through the lens of a monetary wager, and Jim and Charlie expend some energy and pages securing financing for this wager. Jim and Charlie are promptly persuaded by the mathematical (undeniable) truth of Larry's statements.

There is much material here to digest! Right now I am up to Chapter 9, in which Harry (having read Larry's manuscript after receiving it from his wife Alice, who is committing adultery with Charlie) operationalizes some of these principles.

I excerpt the mathematical relations. Harry has spent several days appearing to Alice in a translucent night gown:

show spoiler

[davidm]

[Vivisectus]

LOL what in the name of Ctulhu's hairy pimples is that?

[Vivisectus]

How odd, it seems PG has chosen this time to take a little break. While she gathers her wits, could you perhaps tell us the title of this important scholarly tome?

[davidm]

The mathematical relations explicated in that excerpt are mathematically undeniable! Where did you find such an unheralded gem of a book? In some dirty, ill-lighted place for used books, where for decades — like pearls cast before swine — it languished unknown and unread among lesser volumes devoted to nonmathematical picaresque escapades? Or perhaps you obtained it among the quiet and scholarly Muslim antiquarian bookshops nestled in the colorful bazaars of dusty and somnolent Istanbul?

[Stephen Maturin]

Squirreled away right next to the oldest known full compilation of 1001 Arabian Cunt-Lickings, no doubt.

[Florence Jellem]

The excerpt from that book describes the behavior of my second husband to a "T." Unfortunately I had to kick him to the curb, just like husbands 1 and 3.

[Florence Jellem]

My second husband was forever wearing translucent robes and sexy jackets and chasing me around the dinner table, seeking to mount me thereupon. One Monday evening he caught me and pushed me upon the table and my knee smushed one of the meatballs in the spaghetti and meatballs that I had prepared for him. He threw a shit fit as if this were my fault. In addition as he was grappling with my clothing and attempting to enter me a little one entered the room, a nephew staying with us. “Auntie Flo!” he cried. “What is Uncle [NAME REDACTED] doing to you?” Then my nephew snatched up the fully automatic and loaded Glock 18C that my second husband kept around just on general Second Amendment principles to spite liberals and my nephew fired the gun and winged my second husband in the butt. None of this ended well and it involved the police.

[Florence Jellem]

You know, boys, now that I think of it, I can no longer quite remember the names of my 3 husbands, or the order in which I married them. Is it possible that I have early-stage dementia? Or is it just that I am cracking up because I drink whiskey all day while compulsively masturbating and watching Fox News?

I think my first husband was named … Roger. Roger. Roger something. Roger Dodger? No, no, no, it was Ailes, Roger Ailes. So I was Florence Jellem Ailes. My god was he a horndog! Roger Ailes. He was involved in TV.

I’m pretty sure my second husband was named “Seymour,” but I’m not sure of the last name. Part of me wants to say “Butz.” Seymour Butz. Seymour Butz, who got shot in the butt by his own nephew. So I was Florence Jellem Butz. He was the one who wore sexy jackets and chased me around the dinner table in an effort to mount me. He was an aluminum-siding salesman and a pool hustler. He used to write long books by hand on yellow legal-pad paper and then throw big shit fits and toss all the papers into the fire. He read more than 1,000 books but all of them upside down.

Wait! It just came to me. I don’t think his last name was “Butz” at all. It may have been “Lessans.” Seymour Lessans.

Wait! Isn’t peacegirl’s father named Seymour Lessans?

Peacegirl, did you ever have a stepmother — or, heaven forfend! — an actual mother named Florence Jellem?

[Stephen Maturin]

This thread could really use some showtunes. Apropos of a thread utterly dominated by the imaginary, here's a tune from the imaginary Gangly Orphan Jeff, the ill-fated musical that opened six days after Annie.

"Just Go On" from Unbreakble Kimmy Schmitch -...