A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not following it at all. What must be true are his two premises which lead to his discovery.

A: Man's will is not free because he is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction; or to a more satisfying position than the one he is presently on.

B: Nothing in this world can make someone do something against his will for he has absolute control over this. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'm not talking about force here, where he obviously has no control because someone is doing something to him.

If you cannot grasp his reasoning as to why man's will is not free, then you will not understand the two-sided equation. These are mathematical principles that reveal how conscience works when these undeniable principles are put into effect. But first you have to understand why man's will is not free.

Stop trying to change the subject. My present objection does not concern these two principles, neither of which support his presuppositions on conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget about conscience right now, and try to understand the two premises that lead to Chapter Two.

No, I won't just forget about conscience. Stop trying to change the subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It follows like a well-oiled machine, but you're jumping the gun by believing that under these new conditions people could still desire to hurt others. That is where you're completely wrong. You didn't answer me when I asked you what are the three justifications that allow people to hurt others. You said you read the chapter.

I didn't answer because it is just another attempted diversion. His three justifications were self-preservation, retaliation, and an expectation of blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to do just that, but you're not letting me.

No-one is stopping you at all. Go right ahead and show me how he allegedly proves that man's conscience will be perfect under his changed conditions.


Also, show me where he supported these presuppositions about conscience:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to do just that, but you're not letting me.

By not letting you, you mean that Spacemonkey is not just rolling over and agreeing with everything you say, he has questions which you fail to answer, and objections that you fail to address. No-one is stopping you from posting whatever you want, but you expect complete agreement with whatever you say before you will favor us with any more of your 'privilaged wisdon' from the book. You are all about us proving ourselves worthy to receive this 'Knowledge' by total acceptance of the drivel you've posted thus far.

As has been stated before you need to get professional help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop trying to change the subject. My present objection does not concern these two principles, neither of which support his presuppositions on conscience.

I will not change the subject because this knowledge needs to follow in logical order, and without the first two premises you will not understand the rest.

I didn't answer because it is just another attempted diversion. His three justifications were self-preservation, retaliation, and an expectation of blame.

You are correct. But this is not a diversion. When these three justifications are removed entirely from the environment, conscience reaches a different temperature which causes responsibility for one's actions to be on a different scale than what we've ever seen before. When someone contemplating a first blow under changed conditions (which means that he has not been hurt first but is trying to gain at someone else's expense), he can't do it because he can get no satisfaction from doing it under the changed conditions. If someone is mentally ill and can do it under these conditions, it would only be because his conscience has been severed, which would be virtually impossible unless he's truly sick, but if he was, he would need to be under the care of a physician, just as people are today, but without blame of any kind. Gradually, as the transition takes place, and people are no longer hurt by the environment, these mental illnesses will disappear completely. People are not genetically born to be murderers, killers, and rapists.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to do just that, but you're not letting me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is stopping you at all. Go right ahead and show me how he allegedly proves that man's conscience will be perfect under his changed conditions.


Also, show me where he supported these presuppositions about conscience:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You have two options. You can either show us how his arguments will still work, even if these things are not true. Or you can show us where in his book he specifically argues for and supports them (rather than just asserting or assuming them).

If you can't do either, then they remain unsupported presuppositions.

The way you're confronting me is not the way I can help you understand this knowledge. If you really want to understand it, you're going to have to do it my way which means I have to go in a step by step fashion. If you still think he doesn't support his argument, so be it. Only when the new world is here will you actually accept that he was right all along.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not change the subject because this knowledge needs to follow in logical order, and without the first two premises you will not understand the rest.

You are trying to change the subject from conscience to his first two premises. You are doing so because you cannot support his presuppositions on conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are correct. But this is not a diversion. When these three justifications are removed entirely from the environment, conscience reaches a different temperature which causes responsibility for one's actions to be on a different scale than what we've ever seen before.

Only if his presuppositions on conscience are correct, which is precisely what I've been asking you to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When someone contemplating a first blow under changed conditions (which means that he has not been hurt first but is trying to gain at someone else's expense), he can't do it because he can get no satisfaction from doing it under the changed conditions. If someone is mentally ill and can do it under these conditions, it would only be because his conscience has been severed, which would be virtually impossible unless he's truly sick, but if he was, he would need to be under the care of a physician, just as people are today, but without blame of any kind. Gradually, as the transition takes place, and people are no longer hurt by the environment, these mental illnesses will disappear completely. People are not genetically born to be murderers, killers, and rapists.

None of this supports his presuppositions on conscience. It is therefore a diversion from what I have been asking.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way you're confronting me is not the way I can help you understand this knowledge.

You mean by asking you to give people some reason to agree with those things which must be true for Lessans' argument to work? And by not allowing you to blatantly change the subject when you find that you are unable to provide any such reasons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you really want to understand it, you're going to have to do it my way which means I have to go in a step by step fashion. If you still think he doesn't support his argument, so be it. Only when the new world is here will you actually accept that he was right all along.

I'm not interested in your step-by-step retardation. I've been through it a million times before. For the purposes of my present objection, I'm granting you all of Chapter 1 and pointing out that even if that much is correct, his first non-discovery still fails unless you can show where he supports these presuppositions about conscience. It is not merely my opinion that he does not support them. It is a simple objective fact that Lessans does not anywhere offer support for these points:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not change the subject because this knowledge needs to follow in logical order, and without the first two premises you will not understand the rest.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are trying to change the subject from conscience to his first two premises. You are doing so because you cannot support his presuppositions on conscience.

If that's how you feel, then let's not continue Spacemonkey. Obviously, you believe this knowledge can't be accurate, so I agree with you. Are you happy now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are correct. But this is not a diversion. When these three justifications are removed entirely from the environment, conscience reaches a different temperature which causes responsibility for one's actions to be on a different scale than what we've ever seen before.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Only if his presuppositions on conscience are correct, which is precisely what I've been asking you to support.

If conscience works the way he observed (which it does), along with the two-sided equation, responsibility will go up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When someone contemplating a first blow under changed conditions (which means that he has not been hurt first but is trying to gain at someone else's expense), he can't do it because he can get no satisfaction from doing it under the changed conditions. If someone is mentally ill and can do it under these conditions, it would only be because his conscience has been severed, which would be virtually impossible unless he's truly sick, but if he was, he would need to be under the care of a physician, just as people are today, but without blame of any kind. Gradually, as the transition takes place, and people are no longer hurt by the environment, these mental illnesses will disappear completely. People are not genetically born to be murderers, killers, and rapists.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this supports his presuppositions on conscience. It is therefore a diversion from what I have been asking.

I'm sorry. I really don't know what you want.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way you're confronting me is not the way I can help you understand this knowledge.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean by asking you to give people some reason to agree with those things which must be true for Lessans' argument to work? And by not allowing you to blatantly change the subject when you find that you are unable to provide any such reasons?

No, I'm asking you to follow along until I finish Chapter Two. You might not agree with the book but you have to study it to conclude this. Moreover, it really doesn't matter if you agree or not. This knowledge works because no one will be able to derive satisfaction from gaining at another person's expense when he knows IN ADVANCE that, although he has hurt someone, he will not be blamed or punished. The difference is that this will be a worldwide paradigm shift, not just a few people following these principles here and there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you really want to understand it, you're going to have to do it my way which means I have to go in a step by step fashion. If you still think he doesn't support his argument, so be it. Only when the new world is here will you actually accept that he was right all along.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interested in your step-by-step retardation. I've been through it a million times before. For the purposes of my present objection, I'm granting you all of Chapter 1 and pointing out that even if that much is correct, his first non-discovery still fails unless you can show where he supports these presuppositions about conscience. It is not merely my opinion that he does not support them. It is a simple objective fact that Lessans does not anywhere offer support for these points:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

You are putting your foot in your mouth. Now you are calling my presentation retarded? And you're using the term "non-discovery" again? Do you think I don't see this? You are acting like you're here is for my benefit. If I leave, I won't be the one that loses out, you will.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's how you feel, then let's not continue Spacemonkey. Obviously, you believe this knowledge can't be accurate, so I agree with you. Are you happy now?

No, because you are lying. You don't agree with me at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If conscience works the way he observed (which it does), along with the two-sided equation, responsibility will go up.

And conscience cannot work the way he claimed unless his listed presuppositions are correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry. I really don't know what you want.

Yes you do. You know exactly what I want. I want you to either provide some support for his listed presuppositions or admit that neither you nor Lessans can provide any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm asking you to follow along until I finish Chapter Two. You might not agree with the book but you have to study it to conclude this.

I have studied it. I answered your question correctly, and I've been able to summarize it better than you can yourself. You've refused to even start Chapter 2. Did you mean Chapter 1? I'm not interested in that, and I've told you I am granting you all of it for the purposes of this present objection which concerns only Chapter 2.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are putting your foot in your mouth. Now you are calling my presentation retarded? And you're using the term "non-discovery" again? Do you think I don't see this? You are acting like you're here is for my benefit. If I leave, I won't be the one that loses out, you will.

I don't care if you leave. Though I doubt you're even capable of doing so. Here are those presuppositions again. Either support them or admit that you cannot:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, because you are lying. You don't agree with me at all.

You're right, I'm being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If conscience works the way he observed (which it does), along with the two-sided equation, responsibility will go up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And conscience cannot work the way he claimed unless his listed presuppositions are correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry. I really don't know what you want.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you do. You know exactly what I want. I want you to either provide some support for his listed presuppositions or admit that neither you nor Lessans can provide any.

I don't have to support your presuppositions for him to be right. If his description is right (and it is right), that's all that's needed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm asking you to follow along until I finish Chapter Two. You might not agree with the book but you have to study it to conclude this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have studied it. I answered your question correctly, and I've been able to summarize it better than you can yourself. You've refused to even start Chapter 2. Did you mean Chapter 1? I'm not interested in that, and I've told you I am granting you all of it for the purposes of this present objection which concerns only Chapter 2.

You did answer correctly. Can you explain the two-sided equation?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are putting your foot in your mouth. Now you are calling my presentation retarded? And you're using the term "non-discovery" again? Do you think I don't see this? You are acting like you're here is for my benefit. If I leave, I won't be the one that loses out, you will.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't care if you leave.

Then let's not continue. I'm not going to go out of my way for someone who could care less if I'm here or not.

Originally Posted by "Spacemonkey"Though I doubt you're even capable of doing so. Here are those presuppositions again. Either support them or admit that you cannot:

[I

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.[/I]

If Lessans' observations are correct, then conscience is a universal, God-given, defeasible (only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting), innate, infallible trait, but I can only describe to you under what conditions conscience will allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others, and under what conditions conscience won't allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others. You're never going to be satisfied until you see for yourself that every single conscience works this way (and that's impossible to do); just like you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw every single apple fall from every single tree to prove that apples universally fall down from trees, not up (which is also impossible to do).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, I'm being sarcastic.

Exactly. You are fake-agreeing to avoid the obvious fact that you cannot meet the objection.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget about the presuppositions.

No, I will not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience can work the way he claimed if his observations are correct about what conscience needs in order to justify certain behaviors.

His listed presuppositions must be true for his non-discovery to work. Considerations of what conscience requires to be satisfied are moot unless these presuppositions are correct. And you cannot support them. Neither could Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to support your presuppositions for him to be right. If his description is right (and it is right), that's all that's needed.

You have to support them for anyone to have any reason to believe that he was right. Merely asserting that he was right will not get you anywhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did answer correctly. Can you explain the two-sided equation?

If you want it explained you can damn well explain it yourself. You're just trying to change the subject again. You'll do anything to avoid the fact that you cannot support Lessans' presuppositions on conscience.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let's not continue. I'm not going to go out of my way for someone who could care less if I'm here or not.

If you don't want to continue, then stop replying to me. I intend to continue pointing out that his first non-discovery fails due to his unsupported presuppositions about conscience. You can ignore that fatal problem if you wish.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it Spacemonkey! You put your foot in your mouth again.

You can't do it, can you? You can't support his presuppositions, and you can't stop replying despite the fact that you have no rational response. Must suck to be you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans' observations are correct, then conscience is a universal, God-given, defeasible (only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting), innate, infallible trait...

Yes, those are the points I'm asking you to support. Lessans failed to support them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I can only describe to you under what conditions conscience will allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others, and under what conditions conscience won't allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others.

Exactly. You can only presuppose that he was correct in his presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to be satisfied until you see for yourself that every single conscience works this way (and that's impossible to do); just like you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw every single apple fall from every single tree to prove that apples universally fall down from trees, not up (which is also impossible to do).

If it is impossible to see for oneself how this is true, then how did Lessans manage to see for himself that this is true? You've just told me that Lessans' 'observations' were impossible to observe (something we've been telling you for some time now). So how did he observe something that is impossible to observe? Could Lessans do the impossible?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, I'm being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. You are fake-agreeing to avoid the obvious fact that you cannot meet the objection.

I have no reason to meet the objection because it proves nothing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget about the presuppositions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I will not.

So don't forget, who the hell cares?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conscience can work the way he claimed if his observations are correct about what conscience needs in order to justify certain behaviors.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His listed presuppositions must be true for his non-discovery to work. Considerations of what conscience requires to be satisfied are moot unless these presuppositions are correct. And you cannot support them. Neither could Lessans.

The presuppositions are correct because his premises are correct, and because his description of how conscience works is correct. I'm leaving it at that. If you don't want to hear anything more regarding the considerations that require conscience to be satisfied, which are pivotal, not moot, then we have no basis to communicate at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to support your presuppositions for him to be right. If his description is right (and it is right), that's all that's needed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have to support them for anyone to have any reason to believe that he was right. Merely asserting that he was right will not get you anywhere.

I guess that he should have looked at more apples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did answer correctly. Can you explain the two-sided equation?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you want it explained you can damn well explain it yourself. You're just trying to change the subject again. You'll do anything to avoid the fact that you cannot support Lessans' presuppositions on conscience.

I want to know if you understand the two-sided equation. You said you studied this chapter. At this point it doesn't matter because I'm tired of being interrogated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let's not continue. I'm not going to go out of my way for someone who could care less if I'm here or not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you don't want to continue, then stop replying to me. I intend to continue pointing out that his first non-discovery fails due to his unsupported presuppositions about conscience. You can ignore that fatal problem if you wish.

If you can't consider that his description of what conscience needs in order to be satisfied, is not a mere assertion, then you are the one creating the fatal problem because it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it Spacemonkey! You put your foot in your mouth again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't do it, can you? You can't support his presuppositions, and you can't stop replying despite the fact that you have no rational response. Must suck to be you.

Temper temper! You're in rare form tonight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans' observations are correct, then conscience is a universal, God-given, defeasible (only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting), innate, infallible trait...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, those are the points I'm asking you to support. Lessans failed to support them.

And I will repeat that if his observations are accurate, and his two-sided equation works because conscience cannot hurt others under these changed conditions, then it follows that conscience is a universal, God-given, defeasible, innate, infallible characteristic that exists within all human beings. But this is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but I can only describe to you under what conditions conscience will allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others, and under what conditions conscience won't allow behavior that hurts, or could hurt, others.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. You can only presuppose that he was correct in his presuppositions.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to be satisfied until you see for yourself that every single conscience works this way (and that's impossible to do); just like you wouldn't be satisfied until you saw every single apple fall from every single tree to prove that apples universally fall down from trees, not up (which is also impossible to do).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is impossible to see for oneself how this is true, then how did Lessans manage to see for himself that this is true? You've just told me that Lessans' 'observations' were impossible to observe (something we've been telling you for some time now). So how did he observe something that is impossible to observe? Could Lessans do the impossible?

The most he could do is to draw a common thread between the many accounts of people's behavior throughout history, and under what circumstances people were able to justify hurting others. His observations didn't come out of thin air; they were spot on. But it would be an impossible feat to study every single conscience, and totally unnecessary because he made a large enough sampling to know that the mechanism behind conscience is universal.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no reason to meet the objection because it proves nothing.

It proves that his first non-discovery was based on unsupported presuppositions that no-one has any reason to agree with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The presuppositions are correct because his premises are correct, and because his description of how conscience works is correct. I'm leaving it at that.

His presuppositions are his premises, so the first part is circular reasoning. And his description of conscience presupposes his unsupported presuppositions. Leave it at that if you wish. It just means that you and he have both failed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess that he should have looked at more apples.

Either that or he should have tried learning about the subjects he wrote on, listing the specific observations from which he inferred his generalizations, and perhaps doing some actual empirical research so as to support his own claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to know if you understand the two-sided equation. You said you studied this chapter. At this point it doesn't matter because I'm tired of being interrogated.

Stop trying to change the subject. You know damn well I've read the chapter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't consider that his description of what conscience needs in order to be satisfied, is not a mere assertion, then you are the one creating the fatal problem because it doesn't exist.

Until you support the assertion, it will remain a mere assertion. That is what an assertion is - a claim that has not been supported.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will repeat that if his observations are accurate, and his two-sided equation works because conscience cannot hurt others under these changed conditions, then it follows that conscience is a universal, God-given, defeasible, innate, infallible characteristic that exists within all human beings. But this is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

As usual you have your own argument completely back to front. There is no reason to believe that conscience will not allow people to harm others under his changed conditions unless these presuppositions are true. You can certainly conclude that his needed presuppositions must be true if his subsequent claims and conclusions are all accurate. But then you have no non-circular grounds for claiming that those claims and conclusions are indeed accurate. His presuppositions can only be conclusions if you presuppose his entire non-discovery to be correct. You are guilty of circular reasoning once again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The most he could do is to draw a common thread between the many accounts of people's behavior throughout history, and under what circumstances people were able to justify hurting others.

You assume that one must always be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, and that conscience will always be strong enough to require an adequate justification (unless corrupted by blame). This presupposes the very points I've been asking you to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations didn't come out of thin air; they were spot on. But it would be an impossible feat to study every single conscience, and totally unnecessary because he made a large enough sampling to know that the mechanism behind conscience is universal.

What was his sample size, and what were some of those samples? You have no idea, do you? These are pure faith claims on your part. Either show me his samples and show how they support the following presuppositions, or admit that you are in no position to know whether or not his 'research' was capable of adequately supporting these points:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It proves that his first non-discovery was based on unsupported presuppositions that no-one has any reason to agree with.

His presuppositions are his premises, so the first part is circular reasoning. And his description of conscience presupposes his unsupported presuppositions. Leave it at that if you wish. It just means that you and he have both failed.

Either that or he should have tried learning about the subjects he wrote on, listing the specific observations from which he inferred his generalizations, and perhaps doing some actual empirical research so as to support his own claims.

Stop trying to change the subject. You know damn well I've read the chapter.

Until you support the assertion, it will remain a mere assertion. That is what an assertion is - a claim that has not been supported.

As usual you have your own argument completely back to front. There is no reason to believe that conscience will not allow people to harm others under his changed conditions unless these presuppositions are true. You can certainly conclude that his needed presuppositions must be true if his subsequent claims and conclusions are all accurate. But then you have no non-circular grounds for claiming that those claims and conclusions are indeed accurate. His presuppositions can only be conclusions if you presuppose his entire non-discovery to be correct. You are guilty of circular reasoning once again.

If all of his premises are accurate, which includes his detailed description of how conscience works from a large sampling, then his conclusions are necessarily true. I do not see the circularity in his reasoning. If his premises are valid, then his inferences will be valid. If his inferences are valid, then conscience becomes infallible, God-given, innate and universal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The most he could do is to draw a common thread between the many accounts of people's behavior throughout history, and under what circumstances people were able to justify hurting others.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You assume that one must always be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, and that conscience will always be strong enough to require an adequate justification (unless corrupted by blame). This presupposes the very points I've been asking you to support.

This is not an assumption. One must be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, even if it's on a subconscious level. You're presupposing that conscience is not always strong enough to require an adequate justification. That's where you're incorrect. I don't know what else Lessans could have done other than accurately describe the mechanism behind conscience that is always at work, whether it is obvious to us or not. You must understand that the justification to hurt others may go way back to childhood. The connection between a person's actions today and what happened in his formative years, are often difficult to connect, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. The development of conscience is directly related to early childhood, and what his early experiences were.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations didn't come out of thin air; they were spot on. But it would be an impossible feat to study every single conscience, and totally unnecessary because he made a large enough sampling to know that the mechanism behind conscience is universal.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What was his sample size, and what were some of those samples? You have no idea, do you? These are pure faith claims on your part. Either show me his samples and show how they support the following presuppositions, or admit that you are in no position to know whether or not his 'research' was capable of adequately supporting these points:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

His sample size was very large. You know that I don't have the exact number, but you're going to have to trust that he had enough of a sampling to know what he was talking about. Not having the exact number doesn't change the accuracy of his observations regarding how conscience works on a universal level. Now it's your turn. You said you read Chapter Two, so what is the two-sided equation? I am not changing the subject; I just want to know what you understand.

[LadyShea]

"You have to trust..." is identical to "you have to presuppose...." in that you are asking readers to assume the truth of some statement without offering specific reasons to do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"You have to trust..." is identical to "you have to presuppose...." in that you are asking readers to assume the truth of some statement without offering specific reasons to do so.

I've given them reasons to believe so. If you do not care to listen, then don't LadyShea. This man did a tremendous amount of reading and studying. Just because he didn't write every single account down on paper doesn't mean his account was wrong. You are going to have to trust that when he described how conscience works, it was based on hundreds and hundreds of samplings. He did not presuppose anything. All of his conclusions came from accurate premises, which he proved, which then led to his conclusions about human behavior. He knew that this new world will be the next chapter in man's evolution. I really don't care at this point whether you are interested in this discovery or not. I can't get past page 59, and it's gotten too discouraging for me.

[LadyShea]

Lessans failed to provide readers with his data, with the sources of his special knowledge, so they have no opportunity to review things for themselves to see if they agree with his conclusions. "Trust me these were astute observations..." may be ample for some people, but not for skeptics.

You keep getting frustrated and discouraged. Well, we aren't going to trust you, we aren't going to take your word or Lessans words at face value. If you can't produce the evidence and arguments this set of readers need to be convinced then you can't. Move on to somewhere with lower standards.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans failed to provide readers with his data, with the sources of his special knowledge, so they have no opportunity to review things for themselves to see if they agree with his conclusions. "Trust me these were astute observations..." may be ample for some people, but not for skeptics.

You keep getting frustrated and discouraged. Well, we aren't going to trust you, we aren't going to take your word or Lessans words at face value. If you can't produce the evidence and arguments this set of readers need to be convinced then you can't. Move on to somewhere with lower standards.

Lessans spent so many pages on 'butthurt' and 'self agrandizing' that would have been better spent providing data to support his conclusiions. "Trust Me" is usually a 'red flag' that will put anyone with a functional brain on guard and skeptical about whatever follows. "Trust Me" might work for religions, seduction, and some philosophical arguments, but when Mathametics and Science are invoked, it's not enough, and is actually counterproductive. Peacegirl claims that Lessans knew human nature better than anyone else, so it is curious that he would "shoot himself in the foot" by including so much that is unbelivable and contrary to having people accept or consider his work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans failed to provide readers with his data, with the sources of his special knowledge, so they have no opportunity to review things for themselves to see if they agree with his conclusions. "Trust me these were astute observations..." may be ample for some people, but not for skeptics.

You keep getting frustrated and discouraged. Well, we aren't going to trust you, we aren't going to take your word or Lessans words at face value. If you can't produce the evidence and arguments this set of readers need to be convinced then you can't. Move on to somewhere with lower standards.

It's okay if you don't trust Lessans, but he was right to ask you to give him the benefit of the doubt, which you never have done. That precludes any further discussion, which, I agree, should have ended long ago. I will not move on to lower standards, I will move on to better investigation. You have failed magnificently in this regard. This is your loss.

[peacegirl]

Here is a very real portrait of what words can do to hurt those who feel they don't feel they meet the existing societal standards of what is "beautiful", and the disturbing trend that awaits young girls.
TODAYMoms - Teen girls ask the Internet, 'Am I ugly?'

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not move on to lower standards, I will move on to better investigation. You have failed magnificently in this regard.

When and If you ever get anything more substantial please present it here, in spite of your obvious opinion of the users here, any genuine evidence will be given a fair hearing. The failing of the evidence so far is that it lacked substance and validity and failed to stand up to examination.

The users here have not failed at all, it is your responsability to present proof and answer objections and questions, which you have failed to do. The responsability of the users here is only to give a hearing and fair assesment, done and done.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisecus, of course people can make wrong observations, just as any scientist could be wrong in their conclusions. Unfortunately, before the facts are even in everyone is coming to the conclusion that Lessans is wrong.

You are being very close-minded here, dismissing my astute observation before the evidence is in. You are very quick to dismiss this important knowledge, and this makes me feel sad but also smugly superior. The awesomeness of my observation frightens and upsets you, which is understandable but unfortunate.

You cannot say with 100% certainty that I am wrong, and I have simply decided that that justifies me hanging on to my belief, and that telling me that this makes no sense is unscientific and an example of bias.

Also, empirical tests need to be done to confirm what I am saying. Any empirical tests that have already been done and that do not agree with my belief must have been flawed: you can tell, because if they were not flawed, the results would have confirmed what I already believe. This saves me the effort of actually finding out what was actually wrong with the test, which I am not going to do, as I have decided that whether I like the result of a test or not is an excellent way of determining it's soundness and relevance.

Some evidence may seem to be in complete contradiction to what I believe, but that is merely because unknown factors are at work that make it seem as though my beliefs are wrong. In actual fact they are absolutely correct in every way.

Finally, I would like to point out that all through history, I know of maybe one or two examples where brilliant insights where rejected and even laughed at, along with millions and millions of really stupid crackpot ideas. Your rejection of my idea merely strengthens my certainty that my astute observation is one of the brilliant ones, despite the fact that the logic of that scenario actually works the other way around.

So you see, it is perfectly reasonable for me to claim to be absolutely right despite not having a single test-result to support me, and anyone saying that this is complete twaddle is stupid, biased and closed-minded.

[seebs]

It's not that people are necessarily coming to the conclusion that Lessans is wrong -- merely that we're coming to the conclusion that you cannot offer a single reason for us to believe that he is right.

That, and you have offered us specific reasons to believe that he is wrong, which is that you do not exhibit the transformation he predicted from coming to believe his theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

It's not that people are necessarily coming to the conclusion that Lessans is wrong -- merely that we're coming to the conclusion that you cannot offer a single reason for us to believe that he is right.

That, and you have offered us specific reasons to believe that he is wrong, which is that you do not exhibit the transformation he predicted from coming to believe his theory.

I cannot be the transformation all alone. It takes the whole world for these principles to work. My response in this thread has been a reaction to the way people have treated me. You still haven't gotten one thing from this conversation, not one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still haven't gotten one thing from this conversation, not one.

'Wrong as usual Peacegirl', many of us have gotten quite a bit of useful and interesting information, you are the lone exception.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If all of his premises are accurate, which includes his detailed description of how conscience works from a large sampling, then his conclusions are necessarily true. I do not see the circularity in his reasoning. If his premises are valid, then his inferences will be valid. If his inferences are valid, then conscience becomes infallible, God-given, innate and universal.

I didn't say his reasoning was circular. I said yours was. Lessans never claimed that the presuppositions I listed could be inferred from his stated premises. If he had he would have been wrong, just as you are now. At no point does he offer any reasons or grounds for thinking that conscience is infallible, God-given, innate and universal. These things do not follow from any of his stated principles - but they do have to be true for any of his conclusions to follow. That is why they are presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an assumption. One must be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, even if it's on a subconscious level. You're presupposing that conscience is not always strong enough to require an adequate justification. That's where you're incorrect. I don't know what else Lessans could have done other than accurately describe the mechanism behind conscience that is always at work, whether it is obvious to us or not. You must understand that the justification to hurt others may go way back to childhood. The connection between a person's actions today and what happened in his formative years, are often difficult to connect, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. The development of conscience is directly related to early childhood, and what his early experiences were.

Support your claim that one must be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, even if it's on a subconscious level. I'm not presupposing that conscience is not always strong enough - I'm just not accepting your unsupported presupposition that conscience always is strong enough to require an adequate justification. You've done nothing to support that claim at all. Not accepting an unsupported assertion is not the same as presupposing its falsity.

And there is plenty more Lessans could have done other than merely assert what he believed to be an accurate account of conscience. He could have (i) Researched the existing literature on the psychology of conscience; (ii) Carried out original empirical research into conscience himself; (iii) Actually stated the specific parts of what he read that led him to infer his 'observations' and specified the nature of his inferences to these gneralizations; or (iv) Actually identified his own presupposiitons about conscience and offered others some evidential basis for accepting them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His sample size was very large. You know that I don't have the exact number, but you're going to have to trust that he had enough of a sampling to know what he was talking about. Not having the exact number doesn't change the accuracy of his observations regarding how conscience works on a universal level. Now it's your turn. You said you read Chapter Two, so what is the two-sided equation? I am not changing the subject; I just want to know what you understand.

I'm not here to be quizzed, or to allow you to change the subject. I've already explained the 2-sided equation in my earlier summary. I'm simply here to refute your father's non-discovery by showing how it rests upon completely unsupported presuppositions concerning conscience. And I will keep doing so until you either support them or admit that you cannot do so. I don't have to accept your faith-based claims about his sample size at all. You have no idea of his sample size. And I certainly don't have to accept that Mr. Molecules-of-Light ever read enough to know what he was talking about. You have not offered any reason whatsoever for anyone to think that his 'observations' regarding how conscience works on a universal level were in any way accurate. As per usual, all you have is your delusional faith.


Here are those presuppositions again, which you have yet to support:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say his reasoning was circular. I said yours was. Lessans never claimed that the presuppositions I listed could be inferred from his stated premises. If he had he would have been wrong, just as you are now. At no point does he offer any reasons or grounds for thinking that conscience is infallible, God-given, innate and universal. These things do not follow from any of his stated principles - but they do have to be true for any of his conclusions to follow. That is why they are presuppositions.

I'm sorry, but you're 100% wrong. You are placing the proverbial cart before the horse, and I cannot go on because you're already convinced there is no discovery. The fact that these principles work, under these changed environmental conditions, prove that conscience works in a very predictable way. Conscience performs a very important function, but it could never control behavior to the degree that it is capable of, since man could justify (subconsciously or consciously) his actions through his rationalizations, or because he was retaliating to hurt that was done to him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an assumption. One must be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, even if it's on a subconscious level. You're presupposing that conscience is not always strong enough to require an adequate justification. That's where you're incorrect. I don't know what else Lessans could have done other than accurately describe the mechanism behind conscience that is always at work, whether it is obvious to us or not. You must understand that the justification to hurt others may go way back to childhood. The connection between a person's actions today and what happened in his formative years, are often difficult to connect, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. The development of conscience is directly related to early childhood, and what his early experiences were.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Support your claim that one must be able to justify the action to one's own conscience, even if it's on a subconscious level. I'm not presupposing that conscience is not always strong enough - I'm just not accepting your unsupported presupposition that conscience always is strong enough to require an adequate justification. You've done nothing to support that claim at all. Not accepting an unsupported assertion is not the same as presupposing its falsity.

By definition, if Lessans is correct in his observations as to how conscience works, which is very clearly delineated in Chapter Two, then you must be patient to see the follow through. You can't just give up on this knowledge Spacemonkey because you don't see it immediately. It takes time to understand, under what conditions, conscience permits these acts of crime, and under what conditions, it will not permit these actions. Thanks for explaining to me the difference between not accepting what you don't believe is supported (which is not true in this case), and presupposing its falsity. Maybe there's still hope. There is just so much stubborn resistance in here (which has nothing to do with this discovery), I don't think I can budge people off of their high horses.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And there is plenty more Lessans could have done other than merely assert what he believed to be an accurate account of conscience. He could have (i) Researched the existing literature on the psychology of conscience; (ii) Carried out original empirical research into conscience himself; (iii) Actually stated the specific parts of what he read that led him to infer his 'observations' and specified the nature of his inferences to these gneralizations; or (iv) Actually identified his own presupposiitons about conscience and offered others some evidential basis for accepting them.

I'm sure he could have done more, but you have to give him credit, if his observations turn out to be true (which I believe they are) for doing the best he could. He made three discoveries Spacemonkey. Can you imagine the pressure he was under? I'm sorry he didn't do the normal protocol of writing down how he came to these conclusions after years of reading. Just because he didn't follow the "normal" protocol does not automatically discredit his discovery, or make it unscientific. Why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt? That's all I'm asking; I'm not telling you to agree unless you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His sample size was very large. You know that I don't have the exact number, but you're going to have to trust that he had enough of a sampling to know what he was talking about. Not having the exact number doesn't change the accuracy of his observations regarding how conscience works on a universal level. Now it's your turn. You said you read Chapter Two, so what is the two-sided equation? I am not changing the subject; I just want to know what you understand.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not here to be quizzed, or to allow you to change the subject. I've already explained the 2-sided equation in my earlier summary. I'm simply here to refute your father's non-discovery by showing how it rests upon completely unsupported presuppositions concerning conscience. And I will keep doing so until you either support them or admit that you cannot do so. I don't have to accept your faith-based claims about his sample size at all. You have no idea of his sample size. And I certainly don't have to accept that Mr. Molecules-of-Light ever read enough to know what he was talking about. You have not offered any reason whatsoever for anyone to think that his 'observations' regarding how conscience works on a universal level were in any way accurate. As per usual, all you have is your delusional faith.


Here are those presuppositions again, which you have yet to support:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

Please don't get nasty on me again, or we just won't be able to communicate. How sad that will be because you're the type of individual that actually has the intellectual capacity to grasp this knowledge. For now, I need you to accept that conscience works in a specific way, although it's hard to see in a world of such evil. I realize how difficult it is to contemplate that when all hurt is removed from the environment, no one would ever desire to strike a first blow, but you must remember that we can only move in the direction of "greater" satisfaction, which would render hurting others as an impossible choice under the changed conditions.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are being very close-minded here, dismissing my astute observation before the evidence is in. You are very quick to dismiss this important knowledge, and this makes me feel sad but also smugly superior. The awesomeness of my observation frightens and upsets you, which is understandable but unfortunate.

You cannot say with 100% certainty that I am wrong, and I have simply decided that that justifies me hanging on to my belief, and that telling me that this makes no sense is unscientific and an example of bias.

Also, empirical tests need to be done to confirm what I am saying. Any empirical tests that have already been done and that do not agree with my belief must have been flawed: you can tell, because if they were not flawed, the results would have confirmed what I already believe. This saves me the effort of actually finding out what was actually wrong with the test, which I am not going to do, as I have decided that whether I like the result of a test or not is an excellent way of determining it's soundness and relevance.

Some evidence may seem to be in complete contradiction to what I believe, but that is merely because unknown factors are at work that make it seem as though my beliefs are wrong. In actual fact they are absolutely correct in every way.

Finally, I would like to point out that all through history, I know of maybe one or two examples where brilliant insights where rejected and even laughed at, along with millions and millions of really stupid crackpot ideas. Your rejection of my idea merely strengthens my certainty that my astute observation is one of the brilliant ones, despite the fact that the logic of that scenario actually works the other way around.

So you see, it is perfectly reasonable for me to claim to be absolutely right despite not having a single test-result to support me, and anyone saying that this is complete twaddle is stupid, biased and closed-minded.

My astute observations and detection of patterns in human behavior, which I gain from reading many important books tell me that Lessans was in fact completely wrong.

On what grounds do you decide that you believe Lessans statement about blame, but not mine about his ideas? The essence of Lessans claim, namely that conscience works in a certain way, is supported only by the fact that he claims it, just like I have just done. The only difference is that you believe him capable of such insights, and that you do not believe that I am capable of them.

But why do you believe that Lessans had that capability?