A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The point I was making was not about drugs and their side effects. I am perfectly capable of researching all that myself, and I have.

My whole point was about YOU and your DISHONESTY and your refusal to admit that you LIED to make yourself look wise or whatever effect you were going for.

That is your projection LadyShea. I am not trying to look wise or anything else that you suspect. You like everyone else cannot believe that this is a major discovery, and you'll do anything to prove me wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Wow pure denial of reality here. "Facts and evidence are wrong because my father told me something different."

I hope by now you know that this is not what I'm doing. If you want to keep believing that this is all that it is, what can I say specious? I cannot help that he was my father, but that in itself does not mean he was wrong in his claims. If you want to use this against me, there is nothing I can do. You will have to use your own mind to decide, not the concensus in this thread, which is totally misguided.

[LadyShea]

Deflection away from the fact that you told a bullshit story. You were not prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to being cancer causing.

Just admit it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't mean they read this thread. A lurker is someone who reads or follows without commenting. You have no way of knowing if anyone is reading this thread other than those who are participating in it. And, if there are lurkers, and they are interested in Lessans ideas, why aren't they participating? And if they agree that Lessans is wrong, why would it not be their own conclusion...why would it be "because" of us?

That being said, I know this thread gets hit by spiders a lot, because it is active.

Yes it is active, but I will never allow my words to allow people to access this thread when it is so fucked up in its interpretation of Lessans' propositions, which are more accurate than 1+1=2, that it astounds me everytime I hear the questions being offered. All joking aside: nothing is more accurate than this, except for people who who want to claim the world doesn't exist, and we are worms believing the world is a figment of the imagination.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Deflection away from the fact that you told a bullshit story. You were not prescribed a drug that was pulled from the market due to being cancer causing.

Just admit it.

You are one who is trying to be a big shot by focusing on nothing at all. I will not engage with you if this is what you are complaining about. I hope you change your mo, srsly (in your own words).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Determinism thus stated is incompatible with quantum indeterminism.

It is also incompatible with the regularity or neo-Humean conception of the laws of physics: that there are no laws of physics. What we call the laws of physics are merely descriptive, and never prescriptive. No law "determines" the way planets orbit stars, for instance. They just do happen to orbit stars in a certain manner, which can be mathematically described, and hence the laws are merely descriptive and never prescriptive. As Norman Swartz has pointed out in his writings on this subject, if this is true, then the problem of free will v. determinism never even arises.

According to your own thought system, this thinking would naturally arise. Where would we be if we did not describe what we see? Scientists have described what they see since time immemorial. According to their observations planets orbit stars, so are you telling me that this description is not valid? Lessans observations are a description, which comes before anything that is prescriptive. You don't even understand your own mixed up thinking David. You just can't stand being wrong, but you are, and your comments clearly show it.

[Vivisectus]

Ah - but there is a difference. Lessans states that the descriptive "people chose what they prefer" to mean the same same thing as the prescriptive" "people have to chose what they prefer".

It doesn't: that is a fallacy. You can call his entire book "descriptive", but that is not what David was talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - but there is a difference. Lessans states that the descriptive "people chose what they prefer" to mean the same same thing as the prescriptive" "people have to chose what they prefer".

It doesn't: that is a fallacy. You can call his entire book "descriptive", but that is not what David was talking about.

That is not even what I'm referring to when I use the term "prescriptive". A prescription is something offered to help a situation after describing what is going on. People having to choose what they prefer is descriptive Vivisectus. I can't believe how confused you are in your thinking.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not even what I'm referring to when I use the term "prescriptive". A prescription is something offered to help a situation after describing what is going on. People having to choose what they prefer is descriptive Vivisectus. I can't believe how confused you are in your thinking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

God, how I love it when you link to total quacks. The last news I've read on Burzynski is that he got a continuance in April. BTW, Burzynski uses chemotherapy, but doesn't like to advertise the fact. He also charges for his treatments, even though they're classified as medical trials. It's generally considered unethical to charge for clinical trials.

I'll bet you heard about this guy from Joe Mercola.

I didn't say this guy used natural therapies, but he did not use the therapy that was forced on this child from the mainstream medical community. Maybe he charges so he can stay in business since he doesn't get any kickbacks from being in cahoots with the pharmaceutical company. And no, I did not hear about him from Joe Mercola.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Some conditions need long term medication that will continue, others are short term till the condition is cured. Some are only one time preventative measures. My Congestive Heart Failure requires that I take certain medication all the time, it would be stupid and fatal if I stopped taking them. If I develope diverticulitis I take antibiotics till it goes away. I take Amoxicillin before every dentist visit, and the local Pharmacy gives it away free, where's the profit in that. your ideas about the drug companies are from the dark ages, probably what your father told you, you need to grow up and face the world as it is today, not at the begining of the last century.

I am not advocating stopping your medicine thedoc. I am only saying that there are side effects to every medicine, some serious. Taking drugs for every ailment is the norm because we are entrenched with the idea that drugs are curative. But in most cases they do not cure if the underlying cause isn't addressed through nutrition and a healthy lifestyle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Doctors cannot force treatment on parents or children. Parental consent is required and parents can seek second, third, or even more opinions as well as seek alternative treatments.

And Burzynski? REALLY? Jesus you love the worst kind of hucksters. He's not just a quack, he's a malicious one.

Tell that to the parents of the little boy who was on his deathbed and was written off by conventional medicine. And you think you're being unbiased? You will protect your belief system even at the expense of admitting an obvious mistake by practicing physicians, because you can't handle it. Do you actually think it's fair to force a child to take chemotherapy that destroys his immune system and kills him slowly, without the parent's consent? Of course you do because you can't admit that the practices in conventional medicine are often barbaric. It is not true that parent's always have the consent. Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it. I'm sure you'll weasel out of this too.

Our 2 ½ year old son, Alexander, was diagnosed with a pediatric
brain tumor on August 10th 1998 and passed away after three months
of chemotherapy on January 31st 1999. We believe that it is important
that parents have information (that we didn’t have) about the safety and
efficacy of chemotherapy that have been administered to children with
brain cancer for the past 20 years. We believe that parents should be told
the truth — that these therapies are ineffective and dangerous to the
majority of young children with malignant brain tumors. “Children should
be allowed access to the best therapy and the best quality of life.” Every
child with a terminal disease should have the right to have access to the
best treatment available and the therapy that provides the best quality of
life. Since medical orthodoxy has yet to discover a cure for aggressive
pediatric brain cancer, parents should be permitted to use other therapies
prescribed by their medical doctor.

The FDA’s policy of not permitting
children to have access to any other therapy except chemo and radiation
must stop. Children who are labeled ‘terminal’ should be allowed access
to any treatment that is safe and could potentially save their life. The
FDA stopped Alexander and continues to stop hundreds of other children
from having access to a non-toxic cancer therapy that has proven to be
both effective and safe. Oncologists must be stopped from using children
for experimentation. In their journal articles, oncologists admit that their
therapies for young children with malignant brain tumors are still
experimental, toxic and relatively ineffective. Therefore, oncologists should
not be permitted to take children from their parents in order to use them
as guinea pigs in such unproven therapies. A child with brain cancer is
still a child and deserves to be treated with basic human dignity and
respect. “Parents must be entitled to informed consent.”

‘Informed’
means being given the truth regarding the benefits and risks of a medical
intervention administered to your child. But the history of chemotherapy
in respect to its toxicity, carcinogenicity, and ineffectiveness in aggressive
pediatric brain tumors, is not shared with parents. That is why most
parents submit their children to this insidious therapy because they are
not informed of the truth. ‘Consent’ means being permitted to agree to or
refuse a medical intervention. However, if a parent discovers the truth
about chemotherapy and decides that she does not want this ‘treatment’
for her child, her refusal may be meaningless. Oncologists may use
persuasion, threats and the law to take her child from her even if she says
‘no’ to these toxic poisons. In this way, some oncologists have replaced
‘informed consent’ with ‘unscrupulous coercion’ and that must stop.
Oncologists should not be permitted to use our children as laboratory mice.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope by now you know that this is not what I'm doing. If you want to keep believing that this is all that it is, what can I say specious? I cannot help that he was my father, but that in itself does not mean he was wrong in his claims.

at this simpering liar. Not a single person here has EVER said or remotely implied that he was wrong because he was your father. Only an air head like you would commit such a grotesque ad hominem fallacy. He's wrong, regardless of who he is, because he is empirically wrong. Which is why you, dishonest liar that you are, won't even attempt to account for the fact that NASA sends spacecraft to Mars and other destinations via delayed-time seeing calculations -- calculations that, if Lessans had been right, would have spelled doom for every single craft ever launched. Yet right now, Curiosity is roving Mars, having gotten there according to a trajectory that would have utterly failed if Lessans had been correct.

Conclusion: Lessans was wrong, and you're dishonest. And a creep to boot.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say this guy used natural therapies, but he did not use the therapy that was forced on this child from the mainstream medical community.

Since it is both highly unethical and illegal for physicians to force treatment on patients (excepting such cases as court-ordered treatment), I'm gonna come right out and say that you're lying again. Until and unless you can provide some actual documentation, that is.



Oh, and posting quotes without attribution is plagiarism. It makes Baby Jesus Cry. This has been explained to you before.

In any event, the website you quote contains a lot of half-truths and outright falsehoods. For example, there are no laws forbidding parents whose children have inoperable brain cancer from seeking "alternate therapy." Of course, most insurance companies (quite rightly) aren't going to pay for untested and unproved "therapies" that may well do more harm than good. But if the parents want to have a witch doctor shake his beads over their kid, that's their right.

Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it.

You're wrong. Unless a court orders treatment for the child's protection, children cannot be forced to undergo therapy against their parents' wishes.

But by all means, don't let a few inconvenient facts stop you. You've never done so before; why start now?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope by now you know that this is not what I'm doing. If you want to keep believing that this is all that it is, what can I say specious? I cannot help that he was my father, but that in itself does not mean he was wrong in his claims. If you want to use this against me, there is nothing I can do. You will have to use your own mind to decide, not the concensus in this thread, which is totally misguided.

Where have you done anything to indicate you have any inclination to examine facts and evidence that contradict what Lessans says?

I have read the book, and I've read the critiques of the book. A good portion of what Lessans wrote is wrong, and most of the things he got even close to right about, he came about them via spurious reasons. Yet Lessans ideas are so very, very precious to you that you can't stomach even mild criticisms, and you want to pretend you're one being open minded.

You claim to be skeptical, but then you trot out quacks, frauds, and unethical physicians which only proves you're skeptical of the wrong things for all the wrong reasons, again, because Lessans' ideas on medicine and healing are often not compatible with "mainstream" medical science.

I really pity you peacegirl. You're wasting your time and money earnestly trying to promote falsehoods as the next savior of mankind. Then you waste more of your time arguing with us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

at this simpering liar. Not a single person here has EVER said or remotely implied that he was wrong because he was your father. Only an air head like you would commit such a grotesque ad hominem fallacy.

But it has been an underlying theme throughout this thread. You know it as well as I do. And I thought you said you weren't going to talk to me anymore. That didn't even last a day. As far as the time/light delay, I have said that time will tell, and that's all I'm going to say, so don't keep bringing it up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Where have you done anything to indicate you have any inclination to examine facts and evidence that contradict what Lessans says?

I have done just that, and nothing proves him wrong. Empirical testing is the only way that any truth will be determined (even if you believe all the testing has been done), so you'll just have to wait until that day comes.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I have read the book, and I've read the critiques of the book.

You would never even pass an exam on this book, so don't spout off that you know what you're talking about because you don't.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

A good portion of what Lessans wrote is wrong, and most of the things he got even close to right about, he came about them via spurious reasons. Yet Lessans ideas are so very, very precious to you that you can't stomach even mild criticisms, and you want to pretend you're one being open minded.

I have stomached a lot of garbage in this thread, so don't tell me how I can't handle criticism. The reason you're peeved is because I won't back down. Well that's too bad.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You claim to be skeptical, but then you trot out quacks, frauds, and unethical physicians which only proves you're skeptical of the wrong things for all the wrong reasons, again, because Lessans' ideas on medicine and healing are often not compatible with "mainstream" medical science.

You have no conceptions of what the medical chapter is about, so once again you are embarrassing yourself, but you have your cronies to back you up. Let's debate this one on one without the applause, and we'll see who knows more.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I really pity you peacegirl. You're wasting your time and money earnestly trying to promote falsehoods as the next savior of mankind. Then you waste more of your time arguing with us.

I admit I am wasting my time here, but not for long. It amazes me how defensive you get when you know that my answers are anything but stupid. I defended this doctor because he saved a child from dying, and what do you say in response? That you pity me because I believe in unethical physicians. What a joke. Of course, you don't say anything about the doctors that almost killed this child with impunity.

[Vivisectus]

That is not even what I'm referring to when I use the term "prescriptive". A prescription is something offered to help a situation after describing what is going on. People having to choose what they prefer is descriptive Vivisectus. I can't believe how confused you are in your thinking.

Now that you have had some time to think about it, is there anything about this statement that you would like to change? I am not trying to call names here, but it makes you look so ignorant as to border on the mentally challenged. Surely it was a brainfart? Like something you write after you have drunk too much coffee after a bad night's sleep?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since it is both highly unethical and illegal for physicians to force treatment on patients (excepting such cases as court-ordered treatment), I'm gonna come right out and say that you're lying again. Until and unless you can provide some actual documentation, that is.

What happened to that mother is documentation. I also said that times are changing since the 1990s, I hope.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, and posting quotes without attribution is plagiarism. It makes Baby Jesus Cry. This has been explained to you before.

That excerpt is in my book, and I looked up to see if it was plagiarism. First of all, I am not claiming these are my words. As far as copyright infringement, as long as you are using an excerpt to help support a point you are making, and you are not using someone's words in any malicious way, it is fair use.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In any event, the website you quote contains a lot of half-truths and outright falsehoods. For example, there are no laws forbidding parents whose children have inoperable brain cancer from seeking "alternate therapy." Of course, most insurance companies (quite rightly) aren't going to pay for untested and unproved "therapies" that may well do more harm than good. But if the parents want to have a witch doctor shake his beads over their kid, that's their right.

Just because this doctor was out of the mainstream you call his therapy untested and unproved, yet you call the therapy conventional medicine offered tested? The one that almost killed him? What's wrong with your thinking? . How scary it must have been when they almost pulled his license for reasons that were undeserving, and right in the middle of this little boy's therapy. Do you call this fair to the parents? Do you call this a free society? This boy would have died had this doctor not won in court. Secondly, the chemo that almost killed this child was approved by the FDA, so obviously they didn't do enough testing or the tests were flawed. There is so much bias in here that you can't see the forest from the trees.

Hopefully it's changing but as far as I know, children must take chemotherapy if the doctor prescribes it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're wrong. Unless a court orders treatment for the child's protection, children cannot be forced to undergo therapy against their parents' wishes.

I don't think there was any court order in the case above, and even if there was, what difference does it make? The courts are made up of well-intentioned people but can also be very misguided. Look how many children are put back into abusive homes due to a court order. Geezeeee!

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But by all means, don't let a few inconvenient facts stop you. You've never done so before; why start now?

What does that even mean? I am not disregarding the facts to make it convenient for me. I am being honest and forthright, but because I don't agree with you, you turn it around on me and of course you get the applause. I see this thread for what it is, and it's anything but objective.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happened to that mother is documentation. I also said that times are changing since the 1990s, I hope.

Since your "documentation" consists largely of half-truths and outright falsehoods, it isn't worth squat. And it has been illegal to force medical care on people since well before the 1990s.

That excerpt is in my book, and I looked up to see if it was plagiarism. First of all, I am not claiming these are my words. As far as copyright infringement, as long as you are using an excerpt to help support a point you are making, and you are not using someone's words in any malicious way, it is fair use.

The formatting alone demonstrates that you cut and pasted directly from a website. It wasn't hard to find it. Do you want me to give you the link?

So yes, that is plagiarism on your part.

And please stop talking to me so patronizingly I could puke.

Then stop lying and behaving like an idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now that you have had some time to think about it, is there anything about this statement that you would like to change? I am not trying to call names here, but it makes you look so ignorant as to border on the mentally challenged. Surely it was a brainfart? Like something you write after you have drunk too much coffee after a bad night's sleep?

A description (or being descriptive) is to give an account of what one sees. A prescription (or being prescriptive) is offering a way to change what exists. I've had enough of your cockiness for one day. I am done answering anymore of your posts until you change the way you address me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since your "documentation" consists largely of half-truths and outright falsehoods, it isn't worth squat. And it has been illegal to force medical care on people since well before the 1990s.

This case recently occurred. He might not have been forced to take chemotherapy, but he was being denied the therapy that was saving his life. That's just as criminal, if not more.

That excerpt is in my book, and I looked up to see if it was plagiarism. First of all, I am not claiming these are my words. As far as copyright infringement, as long as you are using an excerpt to help support a point you are making, and you are not using someone's words in any malicious way, it is fair use.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The formatting alone demonstrates that you cut and pasted directly from a website. It wasn't hard to find it. Do you want me to give you the link?

So yes, that is plagiarism on your part.

Who cares. It is not plagiarism because I'm not saying I wrote this. You don't know what you're talking about.

And please stop talking to me so patronizingly I could puke.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Then stop lying and behaving like an idiot.

Let's end the conversation because it's getting nowhere. The bias in here is quite obvious.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He might not have been forced to take chemotherapy, but he was being denied the therapy that was saving his life. That's just as criminal, if not more.

So in other words, you were lying when you talked about how physicians were forcing him to undergo the chemotherapy, against his parents' wishes.

Who cares.

The owners of the material you plagiarized might care a great deal.

It is not plagiarism because I'm not saying I wrote this.

That is not what makes it plagiarism, as was explained to you long ago.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Liar.

The bias in here is quite obvious.

I freely admit that I'm "biased" against lying and hypocrisy. And you're full of both.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A description (or being descriptive) is to give an account of what one sees. A prescription (or being prescriptive) is offering a way to change what exists. I've had enough of your cockiness for one day. I am done answering anymore of your posts until you change the way you address me.

Oh deary deary me. You are thinking about something you pick up at a chemist, aren't you?

How can you even say that you disagree with Dave if you do not even have the slightest inkling what he is talking about? Have you even tried to find out?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does. You just don't want your pet belief to slip away.

Ans what do you imagine my 'pet belief' to be? Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will. And all you can say in response is 'Does too!'

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. Determinism is making a choice that could not be otherwise. But this does not mean that something is causing one to act in a certain way. That's why his proposition is more accurate.

If you are saying that the thesis of determinism (by the standard definition) is inaccurate, then you are saying that determinism is false. This is what your words mean. You didn't follow my previous explanation at all. You've just swapped the word 'proposition' for 'definition' and continued saying the same stupid thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true at all. No one has to tell me what I should not do for me not to do it. I know this instinctively and I don't need anybody to tell me.

I didn't say anything about people telling you what to do. I said that without shoulds (i.e. prescriptions) there is no morality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank god for small favors.

So why did you ask me to join your forum if you don't actually want me to join?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you being vindictive. I've only tried in the last day to be nice to you and answer your questions.

Don't be ridiculous. The one thing you've never done is answer my questions. You went for months straight flatly refusing to answer any of my questions. And you just posted this comment in response to another question you just now avoided answering!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an empirical claim as far as being testable in real life. It is not unfalsifiable which I've said countless times.

If it is a falsifiable empirical claim, then it cannot be a necessary truth, and it can only be established by evidence - of which you still have absolutely none whatsoever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot go by these forums. I stayed a limited time at each one, the longest being the one where I first met you.

Again, why do you imagine there to be lurkers with completely opposite views to every single person who actually posts to you? If there are people out there who think you are making sense, then why has not one of them spoken up at any of the forums you have visited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. I also believe there's a lot of fear to speak up because in order to get by in here you have to be fairly thick skinned. I also think there's a lot of group think. People tend to go with people who are on the winning side. I am David fighting Goliath. It's no surprise people aren't speaking up, but this doesn't necessarily mean they reject this discovery. They are probably taking everything in and coming to their own conclusions. I also believe that people don't want to be the first one to say that they are interested because it will make them a target.

This is blatant wishful thinking. You have no rational grounds whatsoever for thinking that you have lurking supporters who are just too timid and intimidated to speak up.You haven't convinced a single person anywhere of the value of these ideas, after a decade of trying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you already, so why do you keep repeating yourself?

No, you didn't. Why do you keep claiming to have answered questions which you have only avoided? Why are you here? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're nuts? Doesn't this strike you as rather odd behavior? Get help.