A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We should start a list of things that we are expected to accept solely on the basis that some alleged "Astute Observation" has been made by your father. Such as Blame being a necessary condition for justifying a harmful act, the idea that free will is a myth and that the eyes do not see by receiving and interpreting light.

Why do you keep saying that blame is a necessary condition for justifying a harmful act, as if it's the only one. Yes, threats of blame and punishment are often used to justify a harmful act because, if caught, one can pay a price. Do you know the other two conditions?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And we should also start a list of things that are gainsaid by these elusive observations. Apparently Logic can now be wrong (an interesting idea) and physics, optics and biology all have it dead wrong, all of which is proven by "observations" that no-one seems to have bothered to write down.

Logic can be invalid or unsound. What's so unusual about this? And why are you out to make me look like a crackpot? This book does not dispute anything except for afferent vision, and you know it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you consider "proof" and/or "evidence" and what Lessans offered is not satisfactory to me.

How do you know? I haven't even gotten into that part. If you still disagree after his observations are discussed, it doesn't mean he's wrong LadyShea. Did you read this section on your own? Can you explain it? Since it's not satisfactory to you, then please show me where it's not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is a prediction. It doesn't mean you can't hurt my father if you want to, but how could you want to knowing, in advance, that no one in the world would hurt you in return, not even my father. Like I said, no one is going to tell anyone what to do. If you want to do this, then do it. No one will be stopping you, putting you in jail, or retaliating in any way.

.

This is nonsense, removing punitive measures will not prevent people from hurting others. Some people have a conscience, but not all. Some have no desire to hurt others but not all. Blame is not the cause of justification, and removing blame will not remove hurt. Of course Lessans states that there will be a period when those who do not choose 'of their own free will' to be part of the 'Golden Age' will be eliminated. Locks on doors only keep honest people out, removing blame and punishment will just give a green light to those who want to take what they do not earn, or hurt those who will not fight back. Lessans must have had some romantisized vision of the 'Wild West' before there was law and everyone acted with honor. That old Hollywood version of the gunfight at high noon was fiction, if someone wanted to kill someone they would lay in wait, and shoot them in the back, and then take their horse. The 'Golden Age' is just another word for anarchy.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What you said is true I started by asking for clarification on a point, but every was reading posts thru a blind rage and anything other than support was seen as opposition.

The "blind rage" is apparently your interpretation of people calling you out. Plenty of people gave calm and reasoned explanations of why your objections weren't valid. You didn't simply ask for clarification, but attacked the student and others who supported his actions.

You called the student a "looser" for standing up for his rights, and you continually shifted your arguments like you were just fishing for anything to get you traction, but consistently sided with the school and keeping prayer in school, and against the student, and never explained how what you were advocating didn't violate separation of church and state.

You had plenty of opportunity to explain your position. You don't have to be a "rabidly fundamentalist atheist" to support separation of church and state, and as was pointed out, people of other faiths would have had just as much reason to object.

I will admit that when someone pushes I push back, I tend to 'reply in kind',

That's fine. You still were and are wrong, but admitting you have a temper doesn't make you look any better.

don't like it? [quote Henry].

Yeah, that's still not funny.

As far as the characterization 'If the shoe fits'. Otherwise, 'I don't care'.

[Henry Quirk]

"Who said there was a baseline?"


It's implied in the title, 'Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times', and by your question, 'why settle for honest war and violence when you can have true peace-making without giving up your autonomy, agency, or the ability to deliberate?'

As I see it: for evil to fall, there first must be a standard, a criteria, for 'evil'.

How else can it, 'evil', be rooted out?

To eliminate 'evil' one must be able to point and say, 'There, that (person, idea, behavior, etc.) is evil!'

In my experience: one man’s 'evil' is another's 'good'...this, of course, is the direct result of one discharging himself in a way another finds distasteful, so distasteful that for that one, evil is afoot. So: 'evil' largely is a matter of perspective. Therefore, there can be no baseline, no standard, except as promoted by, and enforced by, the one or ones with the biggest stick.

But: your protests aside, Seymour claims a standard by way of the very title of the book...YOU claim a standard by way of your question (simply: to have 'peace' I most certainly WOULD have to give up my autonomy...my autonomy is a guarantee of my capacity to do ill as well as good).

#

"And this what you call a careful analysis???"


I said no such thing.

It's entirely possible I haven't a clue what the damned book is about...as I say above: '…since MY life seems to be moving along nicely without the 'wisdom' of Lessans and Rafael to buoy me: I can only assume that what they (you) have to offer is not worth the effort.'

And, as I say above: 'Where's my incentive to devote myself to wading through 500 pages of badly written material?'

#

"…since his writing style is *bleeding eyes* so I haven't read most of his posts."

[Naru]

So is the "quote Henry" joke about how Henry doesn't know how to use the quote feature?

Move over, mickthinks!

[ChuckF]

[Henry Quirk]

The quote feature makes the screen look messy to me...some (perhaps, most) folks disagree with me...*shrug*...not my problem.

[ChuckF]

What kind of shit forum are you people coming from anyway?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it is a prediction. It doesn't mean you can't hurt my father if you want to, but how could you want to knowing, in advance, that no one in the world would hurt you in return, not even my father. Like I said, no one is going to tell anyone what to do. If you want to do this, then do it. No one will be stopping you, putting you in jail, or retaliating in any way.

Originally Posted by thedoc

This is nonsense, removing punitive measures will not prevent people from hurting others. Some people have a conscience, but not all. Some have no desire to hurt others but not all. Blame is not the cause of justification, and removing blame will not remove hurt.

You're right. Removing blame without removing the conditions that are responsible for the hurt that exists, will not be enough. Don't you see what you're doing? Your belief that it's impossible to remove evil is based on what you see happening in this world. You can't compare this world to the new world.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Of course Lessans states that there will be a period when those who do not choose 'of their own free will' to be part of the 'Golden Age' will be eliminated.

What the hell are you talking about doc? Show me where he said that. You're a liar.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Locks on doors only keep honest people out, removing blame and punishment will just give a green light to those who want to take what they do not earn, or hurt those who will not fight back.

100% wrong.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans must have had some romantisized vision of the 'Wild West' before there was law and everyone acted with honor. That old Hollywood version of the gunfight at high noon was fiction, if someone wanted to kill someone they would lay in wait, and shoot them in the back, and then take their horse. The 'Golden Age' is just another word for anarchy.

100% wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by erimir

If it really matters, in my first post on that thread I was asking Watser the source of his statement that the other students did not respect the athiest student. I didn't get a good answer for that, [quote Henry].

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

*rolling eyes*

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

What kind of shit forum are you people coming from anyway?

Just like this, mostly shit, forum.

[ChuckF]

Seriously though. Is it this one with the crap phpBB implementation? Is that why you all have such a difficult time using the quote function and also posting things that are not shit? You're not the first shitposting newbs to set up shop here. Sometimes lulz but mostly it sucks.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If it really matters, in my first post on that thread I was asking Watser the source of his statement that the other students did not respect the athiest student. I didn't get a good answer for that, [quote Henry].

You got an explanation.

Which then led into you questioning the explanation, and so and so forth and into all the things I said about you basically just liking school-sponsored prayer and disliking people who "stir things up", you know, when that involves challenging school-sponsored prayer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

"Who said there was a baseline?"


It's implied in the title, 'Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times', and by your question, 'why settle for honest war and violence when you can have true peace-making without giving up your autonomy, agency, or the ability to deliberate?'

As I see it: for evil to fall, there first must be a standard, a criteria, for 'evil'.

There is a criteria. Any thing that is done to another that they don't want done to themselves.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

How else can it, 'evil', be rooted out?

You're right about that.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

To eliminate 'evil' one must be able to point and say, 'There, that (person, idea, behavior, etc.) is evil!'

You can replace evil with hurt. It makes it easier to understand.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

In my experience: one man’s 'evil' is another's 'good'...this, of course, is the direct result of one discharging himself in a way another finds distasteful, so distasteful that for that one, evil is afoot. So: 'evil' largely is a matter of perspective. Therefore, there can be no baseline, no standard, except as promoted by, and enforced by, the one or ones with the biggest stick.

You're right, what is hurtful to one may not be hurtful to another, in which case it isn't a hurt. But for the most part, we can identify general hurts that everyone would consider a baseline. BTW, this has nothing to do with who has the biggest stick because we're not talking about enforcement of any kind.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

But: your protests aside, Seymour claims a standard by way of the very title of the book...YOU claim a standard by way of your question (simply: to have 'peace' I most certainly WOULD have to give up my autonomy...my autonomy is a guarantee of my capacity to do ill as well as good).

No, not the way determinism is defined in the book. It doesn't remove your autonomy one bit, nor your capacity to choose ill as well as good.

"And this what you call a careful analysis???"

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

I said no such thing.

It's entirely possible I haven't a clue what the damned book is about...as I say above: '…since MY life seems to be moving along nicely without the 'wisdom' of Lessans and Rafael to buoy me: I can only assume that what they (you) have to offer is not worth the effort.'

I'm the one putting out most of the effort, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

And, as I say above: 'Where's my incentive to devote myself to wading through 500 pages of badly written material?'

I don't agree that it's badly written material. What's the incentive? The possibility that this is a genuine discovery that can accomplish what it claims it can.

[Demimonde]

The third ring to this circus arrives and struggles with the quote feature.

I wonder if it will also chronically confuse "then" with "than" and other shared malapropisms?

Two other boards you say? How was this show received there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Seriously though. Is it this one with the crap phpBB implementation? Is that why you all have such a difficult time using the quote function and also posting things that are not shit? You're not the first shitposting newbs to set up shop here. Sometimes lulz but mostly it sucks.

I have to disagree. Henry's posts are quite thought provoking, and it's refreshing to have someone ask questions that haven't been thought of. But then again, since you consider me a newb, it could be nothing more than birds of a feather flocking together.

[ChuckF]

Have you ever noticed how much you write in vapid clichés and platitudes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about doc? Show me where he said that. You're a liar.

It's in the book.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Henry Quirk

The quote feature makes the screen look messy to me...some (perhaps, most) folks disagree with me...*shrug*...not my problem.

[Doctor X]

He should quote in green squiggle figures and rant about Post-Modernism..

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

.

NIH syndrome.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Is that why you all have such a difficult time using the quote function and also posting things that are not shit?

Originally Posted by thedoc

NIH syndrome.

lol hey guys, should I tell them about multiquote?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Have you ever noticed how much you write in vapid clichés and platitudes?

She's extra special, just like everyone else.