A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know how quote tags work, but sometimes I get tired of using them...

How will the changed conditions of the new world prevent the harm which results from lazy fucktards who can't be bothered doing things properly?

[Vivisectus]

So now suddenly I have to find examples that you feel would happen in a world that is working perfectly because this idea works? But then I am only allowed to pick examples of this idea not working in an imaginary world where this idea works: that is irrational.

You can pick any examples you want but because you don't understand how powerful this law really is --- once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment --- you will be unable to see why these murky situations won't even come up in the new world.

So: this principle always works, except in cases that are "murky", but that is ok, because in a world where everything is better because these principles always work, these murky examples just won't come up?

That is a real logic-pretzel you have created there!

They are perfectly good examples of where people feel they are hurting someone (in our opinion) while actually feeling they are doing them a favor. No justification required. And that is just one type of example.

And I gave you an appropriate answer.

Indeed: you showed me that this principle always works, in circumstances where they work. And that examples of where they do not work don't count, because they won't come up under circumstances where they work.

Shall we apply the same standards and logic to another example to show you how silly that is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's a mess. Please use the quote function the way it's intended.

How are we supposed to figure out who is talking to whom when you start arguing with yourself again?

I wasn't arguing with myself. Show me where I did this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can give you a 'justification' that your changed conditions don't remove: Doing X because it will allow me to get what I want, and what I want is far more important to me than the acceptable amount of harm that X will cause person Y.

Lessans thinks he can remove the three justifications of self-preservation, retaliation, and expectation of blame, but does nothing to remove the justification of rational self-interest.

There is nothing evil about self-interest. In fact, the law of self-preservation justifies this. The only time self-interest is a bad thing is when it doesn't care who gets hurt in the process of trying to getting ahead and will step on anyone who gets in the way. That is ruthless and is 100% prevented in the new world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So: this principle always works, except in cases that are "murky", but that is ok, because in a world where everything is better because these principles always work, these murky examples just won't come up?

That is a real logic-pretzel you have created there!

It is you that is twisting everything I say. I did not say "except in cases that are "murky". Why are you misinterpreting me? Are you doing this on purpose? You are trying to give me situations that you believe can't be solved...but they can be solved. They won't even be issues.

They are perfectly good examples of where people feel they are hurting someone (in our opinion) while actually feeling they are doing them a favor. No justification required. And that is just one type of example.

And I gave you an appropriate answer.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed: you showed me that this principle always works, in circumstances where they work. And that examples of where they do not work don't count, because they won't come up under circumstances where they work.

Shall we apply the same standards and logic to another example to show you how silly that is?

These principles will work across the board.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How will the changed conditions of the new world prevent the harm which results from lazy fucktards who can't be bothered doing things properly?

You're out of control Spacemonkey!

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is you that is twisting everything I say. I did not say "except in cases that are "murky". Why are you misinterpreting me? Are you doing this on purpose? You are trying to give me situations that you believe can't be solved...but they can be solved. They won't even be issues.

You said "test the principle by seeing if there are examples where it does not work"

I did.

You then reject them, saying "That would not come up, because the world will be wonderful, because this principle always works!"

So you are only accepting examples where the circumstances are such that the principle works: all other examples are rejected, because in a world where the principle works, these examples would not happen!



Classic PG pretzel-logic. The holy book is always right, because the holy book says so, and it is always right!

These principles will work across the board.

Apparently not: it is trivially easy to come up with examples where they don't. And I already did.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out of control Spacemonkey!

You're a fucking lunatic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing evil about self-interest.

I didn't say it was evil. I said it is a justification that can lead to harm.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, the law of self-preservation justifies this.

No it doesn't. I'm not talking about situations where self-interest is pursued to stay alive, but where it is pursued at the expense of the welfare of others.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only time self-interest is a bad thing is when it doesn't care who gets hurt in the process of trying to getting ahead and will step on anyone who gets in the way. That is ruthless and is 100% prevented in the new world.

Black and white thinking. I am not talking about a complete pathological disregard for the welfare of others, but simply a preference for some good for oneself at the expense of some harm to another.

This is neither self-preservation, retaliation, or anticipation of blame, so your new world does nothing at all to remove this justification. Dumbass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say it was evil. I said it is a justification that can lead to harm.

No it doesn't. I'm not talking about situations where self-interest is pursued to stay alive, but where it is pursued at the expense of the welfare of others.

Black and white thinking. I am not talking about a complete pathological disregard for the welfare of others, but simply a preference for some good for oneself at the expense of some harm to another.

This is neither self-preservation, retaliation, or anticipation of blame, so your new world does nothing at all to remove this justification. Dumbass.

I would have had a conversation with you until you called me Dumbass. You've lost it Spacemonkey because you don't like his claim about the eyes. I have no interest in talking you. Leave!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would have had a conversation with you until you called me Dumbass. You've lost it Spacemonkey because you don't like his claim about the eyes. I have no interest in talking you. Leave!

Go fuck yourself. You just can't handle being refuted on both of these stupid non-discoveries. You refuse to answer my questions no matter how polite I am, so don't pretend for a second that your evasion has anything to do with my astute observations of your dumbassery.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1266734]

You said "test the principle by seeing if there are examples where it does not work"

I did.

You then reject them, saying "That would not come up, because the world will be wonderful, because this principle always works!"

So you are only accepting examples where the circumstances are such that the principle works: all other examples are rejected, because in a world where the principle works, these examples would not happen!



Classic PG pretzel-logic. The holy book is always right, because the holy book says so, and it is always right!

Apparently not: it is trivially easy to come up with examples where they don't. And I already did.

There are no examples that would discredit this natural law and what has been hidden behind it. You can throw it out, you can snub your nose at it, you can do whatever you choose to do to make your feelings known but it does nothing, and I mean NOTHING to discredit this knowledge. I am almost embarrassed by your lack of curiosity. You have put the cart before the horse before it even got out of the stall. Due to your ignorance and to the fact that you think there is no way it could work, the sheeple are agreeing. This is a dangerous position to take Vivisectus in that you and others like you will be preventing a different way of life from coming about with a scientific watermark. If everyone thinks the way you do, it will change the timeline of when this new world will become a reality but it will not destroy the peace that is coming. I will continue on with you, or without you. What is true will come true, no matter how long it takes even if it takes 100 years long after we are gone. God's timing is not our timing and God knows better than you. Just remember that.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

I know how quote tags work, but sometimes I get tired of using them especially with long posts. Was there confusion as to who was answering in the previous post? I purposely bolded my answers.

It's a mess. Please use the quote function the way it's intended.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How are we supposed to figure out who is talking to whom when you start arguing with yourself again?

I wasn't arguing with myself. Show me where I did this.

It certainly seems that way, when you mess up the quote tags like that all the time.

[quote]

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is true will come true, no matter how long it takes even if it takes 100 years long after we are gone.

What is true does not "come true"; what is true simply is.

God's timing is not our timing and God knows better than you.

And yet, you keep insisting that there's nothing religious about these beliefs, and that they are "scientific" in nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What is true does not "come true"; what is true simply is.

What is true simply is true, but this doesn't change the fact that by knowing what is true, we can apply it to improve our world. It is true we know the formula on how to build a bridge, but until we apply it, we cannot use that formula in a way that benefits us.

God's timing is not our timing and God knows better than you.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, you keep insisting that there's nothing religious about these beliefs, and that they are "scientific" in nature.

They are scientific in nature. The word "God" can be used in a non-religious way. This was explained in the first few pages of the book.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1266743]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There are no examples that would discredit this natural law and what has been hidden behind it. You can throw it out, you can snub your nose at it, you can do whatever you choose to do to make your feelings known but it does nothing, and I mean NOTHING to discredit this knowledge. I am almost embarrassed by your lack of curiosity. You have put the cart before the horse before it even got out of the stall. Due to your ignorance and to the fact that you think there is no way it could work, the sheeple are agreeing. This is a dangerous position to take Vivisectus in that you and others like you will be preventing a different way of life from coming about with a scientific watermark. If everyone thinks the way you do, it will change the timeline of when this new world will become a reality but it will not destroy the peace that is coming. I will continue on with you, or without you. What is true will come true, no matter how long it takes even if it takes 100 years long after we are gone. God's timing is not our timing and God knows better than you. Just remember that.

Hey - you were the one who said that the way to test a principle was to find examples of it not working. So I mentioned a few. Don't blame me for the fact your own nonsense has backfired on you.

And hey, as the Holy Book says, with that typical humbleness and self-deprecation that we have come to expect:

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relation in the next 25 years.

No mention here of a hundred years?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey - you were the one who said that the way to test a principle was to find examples of it not working. So I mentioned a few. Don't blame me for the fact your own nonsense has backfired on you.

Oh be quiet Vivisectus. I never said the way to test a principle was to find examples of it not working.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And hey, as the Holy Book says, with that typical humbleness and self-deprecation that we have come to expect:

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relation in the next 25 years.

No mention here of a hundred years?

25 years was only predicted if the discovery was investigated. It hasn't been. You haven't even read the first page. I am losing interest in discussing the book with you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Oh be quiet Vivisectus. I never said the way to test a principle was to find examples of it not working.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

The only way to test if an observation is true is to try to find an exception.

Whoops!

25 years was only predicted if the discovery was investigated. It hasn't been. You haven't even read the first page. I am losing interest in discussing the book with you.

Nope, the prediction was not qualified like that. I do believe something like that was added after it had failed to happen though.

Typical Janis: when what you say is proven wrong, just pretend you meant something else. You even did that to your own fathers book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whoops!

I admit, I forgot I said that. But you haven't found any exceptions to this natural law, because there aren't any. A natural law is not a law if there are exceptions.

25 years was only predicted if the discovery was investigated. It hasn't been. You haven't even read the first page. I am losing interest in discussing the book with you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nope, the prediction was not qualified like that. I do believe something like that was added after it had failed to happen though.

He qualified it by saying that the prediction of 25 years was based on the conviction that the discovery would have been recognized and confirmed valid. Unfortunately this didn't happen, so the prediction is defunct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Typical Janis: when what you say is proven wrong, just pretend you meant something else. You even did that to your own fathers book.

Whatever you say.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And hey, as the Holy Book says, with that typical humbleness and self-deprecation that we have come to expect:

This is the most fantastic non-fiction book ever written because it will verify the prediction made in the introduction by producing unbelievable changes in human relation in the next 25 years.

What an incredible blowhard.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're out of control Spacemonkey!

So you don't have an answer, Spacemonkey's example is another fly in the ointment.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would have had a conversation with you until you called me Dumbass.

What difference does it make, you don't answer when Spacemonkey is nice to you and you don't answer when he's rude to you, so he may as well be honest and call it the way he see's it. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no examples that would discredit this natural law and what has been hidden behind it. You can throw it out, you can snub your nose at it, you can do whatever you choose to do to make your feelings known but it does nothing, and I mean NOTHING to discredit this knowledge.

If it really were a natural law, it would not need to be understood and accepted to be in effect, the fact that people must study and accept it means that it is an unnatural man made law, that has no effect unless people accept it. People can, and do ignore it, and it has no effect at all. But you are correct that nothing can discredit this knowledge, since there is no knowledge there at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

God's timing is not our timing and God knows better than you.

Peacegirl, do you think it's possible that God is thwarting the implementation of Lessans "Brave New World Order Golden Age" because you are Jewish, and by definition, reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah? Is it possible that if you were to accept Jesus Christ as your savior, God would bless Lessans book and bring about "Lessans Brave New World Order Golden Age? Just asking if you have thought about that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are scientific in nature. The word "God" can be used in a non-religious way. This was explained in the first few pages of the book.

"God" is a religious term, Lessans trying to redefine it doesn't work, in fact it puts everything he writes into question. He is using a very idiosyncratic definition that doesn't work in the real world.