A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

I explained why this is not a tautology or a modal fallacy, but it went in one ear and out the other

No you didn't, you merely asserted that it is not tautological or fallacious. No explanations ever, at all. I went back and checked even to ensure I wasn't misremembering.

However, if you can provide a link to your alleged explanations I will apologize.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you didn't, you merely asserted that it is not tautological or fallacious. No explanations ever, at all. I went back and checked even to ensure I wasn't misremembering.

However, if you can provide a link to your alleged explanations I will apologize.

I don't want your apology. I thank you for helping me with that one sentence, but that doesn't mean you are right in this case. Lessans' observations were spot on. These observations can and will be tested and proved correct one day. Mark my words. If you're not interested in the book, I suggest you move on. I won't be offended.

[LadyShea]

LOL

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want your apology. I thank you for helping me with that one sentence, but that doesn't mean you are right in this case. Lessans' observations were spot on. These observations can and will be tested and proved correct one day. Mark my words. If you're not interested in the book, I suggest you move on. I won't be offended.

peacegirl, everyone here is well past any interest in Lessans. It is you, the crazy lady, they are interested in. As long as you respond to posts, it is gonna go on like this forever. You will be poked, and prodded and people will marvel at how screwed up you are.

Get help peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Since I am no longer discussing the book, here is a link to a PBS report that some people may find informative.

Dollars and Dentists | FRONTLINE | PBS

[LadyShea]

If you are no longer discussing the book then you should move to different threads to discuss different topics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you are no longer discussing the book then you should move to different threads to discuss different topics.

It was just a t.v. show I came across and I wanted to give people the link. I'm not interested in discussing it. If I have a topic of interest to discuss, I will start a new thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scroll back, you'll find them Spacemonkey. I'm not going to work harder than you do, sorry.

Can't do it can you? You're full of shit, Peacegirl. You can't produce a single question from me that shows a lack of understanding.

You can't defend his claims about vision, and you can't defend his presuppositions about conscience. Yet you can't bring yourself to leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can't do it can you? You're full of shit, Peacegirl. You can't produce a single question from me that shows a lack of understanding.

You can't defend his claims about vision, and you can't defend his presuppositions about conscience. Yet you can't bring yourself to leave.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will leave when I'm good and ready. Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong. As far as your understanding of his first discovery, you don't even come close. You can stamp your feet all you want, and call me all kinds of names, it doesn't change the facts. He made no assumptions or presuppositions whatsoever. His reasoning came from astute observation and accurate inferences. Take it or leave it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will leave when I'm good and ready. Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong. As far as your understanding of his first discovery, you don't even come close. You can stamp your feet all you want, and call me all kinds of names, it doesn't change the facts. He made no assumptions or presuppositions whatsoever. His reasoning came from astute observation and accurate inferences. Take it or leave it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're full of shit. You are also mentally ill. You can't explain real-time vision without directly contradicting yourself, and that does mean his claim is wrong. You have never established any lack of understanding on my part with respect to his first non-discovery, nor are you able to do so. His presuppositions have been listed and you have acknowledged that his conclusions require them to be true. Your faith-based insistence that they were somehow reliably inferred from 'observations' that you do not know anything about and cannot present does nothing to change the fact that they are still unsupported presuppositions in the context of hs work. Take it or leave it? Everyone here has already left it. But you can't leave because your mental illness compels you to stay. Get help Peacegirl. Everyone here knows you need it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I can't explain the exact mechanism as to how the eyes work, but that doesn't mean that his claim is wrong.

Quite right. Even a crazy person can be right if what they claim is right. However when it comes to vision and senses Lessans was just wrong. There is no amount of testing that is gonna change that. And only treatment for your schizophrenia will ever allow you to realize this.

Get help peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You're full of shit. You are also mentally ill. You can't explain real-time vision without directly contradicting yourself, and that does mean his claim is wrong. You have never established any lack of understanding on my part with respect to his first non-discovery, nor are you able to do so. His presuppositions have been listed and you have acknowledged that his conclusions require them to be true. Your faith-based insistence that they were somehow reliably inferred from 'observations' that you do not know anything about and cannot present does nothing to change the fact that they are still unsupported presuppositions in the context of hs work. Take it or leave it? Everyone here has already left it. But you can't leave because your mental illness compels you to stay. Get help Peacegirl. Everyone here knows you need it.

There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey. The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative. I'm done talking to you. You've gotten too rude for my taste.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There were no presuppositions Spacemonkey.

Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing he needed to prove is that, when there is no justification to hurt others with a first blow, conscience WILL NOT ALLOW one to choose this option as a preferable alternative.

And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course there were. There are the listed points concerning conscience. Until you can support them they remain no more than presuppositions. That's what the word 'presupposition' means.

And he didn't prove that. The only reasoning he provided presupposed his listed presuppositions about conscience.

Oh, and where were those red photons? Have you worked out yet whether they were stationary photons or teleporting photons? (Because you have inconsistently claimed that they were both.)

I'm going to say this one more time. The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow. If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not. That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to say this one more time. The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow. If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not. That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.

And when your memory and reasoning fails you yet again because of your mental illness you will tolerate it again, and again, and again till the end of your days.....
or you could get help.

Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And when your memory and reasoning fails you yet again because of your mental illness you will tolerate it again, and again, and again till the end of your days.....
or you could get help.

Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.

Of course NA is going to try and get the last word. He's been doing this all along, as if his remarks discredit this major discovery. For those people who have a tad of humility left (which I doubt), I am giving the address to my website just in case they may be interested after this thread is gone. I promise, I won't tell anyone since I know there's so much pressure in here to make Lessans look like a fool, which he is anything but. So mums the word. shhhh Please be aware that my website is not yet constructed. Hopefully it will be up and ready in a short time.

Coming Soon - Future home of something quite cool

www.trafford.com

[But]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Get help peacegirl, schizophrenia is treatable.

Again, what is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?

[thedoc]

Compare Peacegirls posts on these 2 threads and this,

Schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[But]

Yeah. Looks like complete bullshit.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

Again, what is your evidence or argument that she is schizophrenic?

He got it from "shut up and calculate," which according to him is absolutely authoritative. "Shut up and calculate" is God for him, all inquiry stops there.

Of course, there is no "shut up and calculate" to diagnose schizophrenia, so I guess he's just a big hypocrite, since he is stating a "fact" without shutting up and calculating! Goodness, does this mean there could be more to life and to intellectual inquiry than "shut up and calculate"?

[thedoc]

If everything is black and white, 'Shut up and calculate' works, but if there are gradiations of knowledge, then it would require some thought.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He got it from "shut up and calculate," which according to him is absolutely authoritative. "Shut up and calculate" is God for him, all inquiry stops there.

Of course, there is no "shut up and calculate" to diagnose schizophrenia, so I guess he's just a big hypocrite, since he is stating a "fact" without shutting up and calculating! Goodness, does this mean there could be more to life and to intellectual inquiry than "shut up and calculate"?

You are in a world of your own. That's all I have to say.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to say this one more time.

Why? Why are you repeating a point that was already addressed and refuted?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing he has to prove is that, under certain environmental conditions, conscience cannot justify hurting others with a first blow.

And he didn't prove this. As I already explained, his reasoning for this relies upon those presuppositions that you cannot support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he can do that, then his reasoning is spot on, and this new world is coming whether you can see it or not.

And he can't do that, therefore his reasoning is not spot on.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I'm going to add. The responses have gotten so mean and nasty that I'm not going to tolerate it anymore.

But you will. Because you will forget that you've said this, and your mental illness won't let you stop replying.

Where were those red photons? Were they stationary or did they teleport? You don't have the faintest idea, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? Why are you repeating a point that was already addressed and refuted?

And he didn't prove this. As I already explained, his reasoning for this relies upon those presuppositions that you cannot support.

And he can't do that, therefore his reasoning is not spot on.

But you will. Because you will forget that you've said this, and your mental illness won't let you stop replying.

Where were those red photons? Were they stationary or did they teleport? You don't have the faintest idea, do you?

I hope you don't give up on these amazing discoveries. I am not depending on you, but I know that you've spent a lot of time here, and it certainly would make me feel glad that you don't jump ship and give up entirely. The website will be up soon. Go to it if you ever have the inclination.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you don't give up on these amazing discoveries.

You don't have any amazing discoveries. You have only an amazing mental illness and faith-based delusion, and an amazing inability to answer questions or address objections.