A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's nothin to laugh about.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that this was not his claim. He was making a generalization. I believe he would have changed that sentence if he had known the grief it was going to cause.

It seems to be there in black and white, though. And yet you are saying he never meant what he actually said.

Problem is, you are also asking us to believe conscience works the way he says it does, based on his say so.

Can you see how that could be considered a contradiction? On the one hand we have to just take his word for it, since there is no evidence in your book. On the other hand, you are saying that he sometimes said things that turn out not to be true at all, or where he apparently did not mean what he seemed to be saying at all.

And you agree to such an extent you cut these statements from the book altogether because you felt they would hurt his credibility.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you harping on this? This was not his claim. It didn't require data because that was not what he was trying to prove. I would have talked about how this could be used against him and maybe he would have changed his wording, but you have to realize that this had nothing to do with his claims which came from observation. Observation is one aspect of scientific methodology.

In the real book he does claim it. Do you think he is right, or not? And is there more support for this claim than for his other claims, less, or the same amount?

[Stephen Maturin]

peacegirl, surely we can all agree the statement "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" is false, yes?

[Florence Jellem]

Look, boys, I suppose you can discuss what you want -- "precious cunts" this and "homosexual behavior" that -- but I'd like to remind you that there are ladies present, after all.

Couldn't we get back to discussing urlust and how Mr. Lessans' knob was really the Universal Knob? "That's one small knob for a man, one raging boner for all mankind." That's what Flo wants to focus on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about now Spacemonkey? You're all washed up. He did not make up numbers. You just can't follow the math in the economic chapter. Don't blame him for that.

Where was the money coming from to cover all those incomes of people who were out of work, due to not being needed in the Golden Age?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Hm. That's interesting. How did we figure out that there is a "huge genetic component?" Sounds awfully science-y.

peacegirl, you are the only one construing this statement at all.

So instead of using Lessans made up nonsense, we are supposed to substitute Peacegirl's made up nonsense?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's nothin to laugh about.

Those who don't understand the joke, soon become the butt of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It seems to be there in black and white, though. And yet you are saying he never meant what he actually said.

Problem is, you are also asking us to believe conscience works the way he says it does, based on his say so.

Can you see how that could be considered a contradiction? On the one hand we have to just take his word for it, since there is no evidence in your book. On the other hand, you are saying that he sometimes said things that turn out not to be true at all, or where he apparently did not mean what he seemed to be saying at all.

And you agree to such an extent you cut these statements from the book altogether because you felt they would hurt his credibility.

He made three discoveries Vivisectus. He explains exactly how conscience works and he is correct. His observations are spot on. The 98% figure was to mean a large percentage. If he was still living he may have changed the wording. People have been trying to find anything they can in an effort to discredit him and it's not working.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The 98% figure was to mean a large percentage. If he was still living he may have changed the wording.

Ok, fair enough - he didn't really mean what he wrote. Turning to your construction, is there any factual basis for believing that a large percentage of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, fair enough - he didn't really mean what he wrote. Turning to your construction, is there any factual basis for believing that a large percentage of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love?

I believe there is a factual basis for this belief. He was referring to people who have little chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex such as people in prison or people who can't get a date with the opposite sex, for whatever reason. The "why" is much less important than the "how". In the new world everybody will be treated with equal respect regardless of their sexual orientation. I do admit that this would have been better left out, but regardless, it has no bearing on the validity of his discoveries. You're trying to punch holes in his claims without actually studying his claims. It won't work.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe there is a factual basis for this belief.

Great! peacegirl, what is the factual basis for the claim that a large percentage (like, say, 98%) of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love? From what data set is it derived?

He was referring to people who have little chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex such as people in prison or people who can't get a date with the opposite sex, for whatever reason.

peacegirl, is there a factual basis for believing that homo-sexuals are people "who have who have little chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex such as people in prison or people who can't get a date with the opposite sex?" Which specific data support this statement or suggest that it is true?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have been trying to find anything they can in an effort to discredit him and it's not working.

Unfortunately, (for Lessans), it doesn't take much effort to find something wrong with what he wrote, many people have found such errors and it just decreases his already low credibility. The problem is that if he is wrong about the ideas that can be verified (and there are many), he is probably also wrong about those that cannot be verified (there are only a few).

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The 98% figure was to mean a large percentage.

Specifically, 98%.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's nothin to laugh about.

So have you figured it out yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe there is a factual basis for this belief.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Great! peacegirl, what is the factual basis for the claim that a large percentage (like, say, 98%) of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love? From what data set is it derived?

He was referring to people who have little chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex such as people in prison or people who can't get a date with the opposite sex, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, is there a factual basis for believing that homo-sexuals are people "who have who have little chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex such as people in prison or people who can't get a date with the opposite sex?" Which specific data support this statement or suggest that it is true?

I already told you that this was not his thesis. It was a passing comment with some truth to it, but not the whole truth. Becoming gay could also be due to bad heterosexual relationships. And of course it can be due to plain old preference. I'm not going to be grilled by you on this topic anymore because it has nothing to do with the veracity of his 3 discoveries.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that this was not his thesis. It was a passing comment with some truth to it, but not the whole truth. Becoming gay could also be due to bad heterosexual relationships. And of course it can be due to plain old preference. I'm not going to be grilled by you on this topic anymore because it has nothing to do with the veracity of his 3 discoveries.

But surely it has everything to do with the veracity of the claim itself. You say that there is "some truth" to it (or at least to how you say it should be interpreted, which is rather different from what is actually written) - I just want to know what the factual basis for that truth is. What data substantiates that truth?

Where is the data to support the claim that "becoming gay could also be due to bad heterosexual relationships?" What is the factual basis to support the claim that homo-sexuals become homo-sexuals because they can't meet someone of the opposite sex, like when they are in prison, or just can't get a date?

peacegirl, this is what studying claims looks like. Why are you so hostile to it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that this was not his thesis. It was a passing comment with some truth to it, but not the whole truth. Becoming gay could also be due to bad heterosexual relationships. And of course it can be due to plain old preference. I'm not going to be grilled by you on this topic anymore because it has nothing to do with the veracity of his 3 discoveries.

Originally Posted by Chuck

But surely it has everything to do with the veracity of the claim itself. You say that there is "some truth" to it (or at least to how you say it should be interpreted, which is rather different from what is actually written) - I just want to know what the factual basis for that truth is. What data substantiates that truth?

Where is the data to support the claim that "becoming gay could also be due to bad heterosexual relationships?" What is the factual basis to support the claim that homo-sexuals become homo-sexuals because they can't meet someone of the opposite sex, like when they are in prison, or just can't get a date?

peacegirl, this is what studying claims looks like. Why are you so hostile to it?

I'm not hostile to it. I believe he said this to show that when the environmental conditions change no one will be left out when it comes to finding a mate. He probably didn't realize that this would be scrutinized to the point where people would become suspicious over the accuracy of his discoveries. The bottom line is that regardless of ones sexual preference, people will stay together until death do they part due to the changes in the environment and the application of these principles.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you seem to be having trouble accepting the fact that he made an incorrect and unsupported claim. This is odd, seeing as how you decided for yourself it was so wrong that you took it out of his book.

It does beg the question though, of how you have gone about determining which claims are wrong (or not what he really meant), which claims may not be literally true but are still "close enough" to leave in, and which claims are 100% accurate astute observations.

His claims are all the same on the page. They don't exactly come with labels to distinguish them. So how have you gone about it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you seem to be having trouble accepting the fact that he made an incorrect and unsupported claim. This is odd, seeing as how you decided for yourself it was so wrong that you took it out of his book.

It does beg the question though, of how you have gone about determining which claims are wrong (or not what he really meant), which claims may not be literally true but are still "close enough" to leave in, and which claims are 100% accurate astute observations.

His claims are all the same on the page. They don't exactly come with labels to distinguish them. So how have you gone about it?

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued. If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it. He would have used the scientific method of testing his claim in this fashion. But he could not use this same method to prove that his discoveries are true. That does not mean they're not valid.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The bottom line is that regardless of ones sexual preference, people will stay together until death do they part . . .

. . . unless they don't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued. If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it. He would have used the scientific method of testing his claim in this fashion. But he could not use this same method to prove that his discoveries are true. That does not mean they're not valid.

So his other claimed discoveries are not serious claims because he gave no data to support them, they are just off the cuff claims with no visible means of support, unless you are looking efferently.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he said this to show that when the environmental conditions change no one will be left out when it comes to finding a mate. He probably didn't realize that this would be scrutinized to the point where people would become suspicious over the accuracy of his discoveries.

The bottom line is that regardless of ones sexual preference, people will stay together until death do they part.

Stated but not proven or even demonstrated to be plausible.

Again, stated but not proven or even demonstrated to be plausible.

Lessans probably was aware that people would scrutinize his statements and get that they were part of the joke.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued.

And because you think it is factually wrong. You seem to be having incredible difficulty admitting this simple fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it.

He didn't give data anywhere else in his book in support of any of his other claims. So again, how do you tell which of his claims were non-serious off-the-cuff unsupported assertions to be deleted, and which were 100% accurate astute observations to be retained? As editor and co-author, how did you make these distinctions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would have used the scientific method of testing his claim in this fashion.

How do you know that? Did he use the scientific method anywhere else?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that this was not his claim. He was making a generalization. I believe he would have changed that sentence if he had known the grief it was going to cause.

It may not have been THE CLAIM, but it was certainly his claim. He made it so he owned it. If it was wrong (and I think it was) then he made a mistake. He was, in short, in error. This despite his great genius and notwithstanding his many undeniable and mathematically astute observations.