Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7801  
Old 02-07-2012, 07:21 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well of course I am applying knowledge. That's how knowledge works, it builds on itself.
Absolutely, until you derail it. :(
All she is derailing is the indoctrination. I suspect that you are presenting Lessans material to us pretty much the same way Lessans presented it to you. It worked in your case because you don't appear to have a critical thinking ability.
Your best target audience will be children.

Don't tell her that, do you want young kids growing up believing this stuff. :fuming: Next thing you know she'll be off somewhere trying to find young kids to read to. Shit, did I post that out loud?
I hope she does. It may be the only way she will get help.
Reply With Quote
  #7802  
Old 02-07-2012, 07:23 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.
I addressed your non-response a long time ago, which stopped me from moving forward. Why can't you admit you're wrong LadyShea. This is not about nuances. Either you're dead or alive. If you're in between, you're not dead.
Again, that depends on your definition of dead

Quote:
Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
So, if my heart is kept beating then transplanted to another person, that means there was NOT a permanent termination of the biological function of my heart beating.

If I am declared dead, but my biological functions are maintained artificially until my organs can be harvested, am I dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy
Quote:
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no additional options between DEAD and ALIVE. There is no FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I said the more "educated" someone thinks he is, the more ignorant he becomes. :(
Sure there are options that aren't "dead or alive" depending on how you understand and define those words, but that wasn't the false dichotomy I was referring to anyway so you're weaseling.

The false dichotomy was that the only options were free will as Lessans understood it to be defined and determinism as Lessans defined it.
Reply With Quote
  #7803  
Old 02-07-2012, 07:24 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Reply With Quote
  #7804  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:22 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

Well if we want to open another 'can of worms' is death digital or analog?
Reply With Quote
  #7805  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:31 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #7806  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well of course I am applying knowledge. That's how knowledge works, it builds on itself.
Absolutely, until you derail it. :(
All she is derailing is the indoctrination. I suspect that you are presenting Lessans material to us pretty much the same way Lessans presented it to you. It worked in your case because you don't appear to have a critical thinking ability.
Your best target audience will be children.

Don't tell her that, do you want young kids growing up believing this stuff. :fuming: Next thing you know she'll be off somewhere trying to find young kids to read to. Shit, did I post that out loud?
I hope she does. It may be the only way she will get help.
Children will be raised so differently in the new world that ALL be healthy contributing members of society. The next generation will probably be the ones to bring this discovery to light.
Reply With Quote
  #7807  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:40 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
Me too. And my husband.
Reply With Quote
  #7808  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
LadyShea, I can't even begin to answer your question. It doesn't even make sense. TLR, don't worry, you'll be here too. :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #7809  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:42 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Where's that definition, Peacegirl?

What about Lessans' presuppositions on conscience, Peacegirl?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7810  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:43 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
LadyShea, I can't even begin to answer your question. It doesn't even make sense. TLR, don't worry, you'll be here too. :wink:

It makes perfect sense.

You stated that the germinal substance was a biological physical substance with weight and mass that allows people to live again and again...and later clarified that it was "passed on" through gametes (sperm and ova).

So, what of those people who don't pass it on because they do not biologically reproduce? Do they live again and again or not?
Reply With Quote
  #7811  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.
I addressed your non-response a long time ago, which stopped me from moving forward. Why can't you admit you're wrong LadyShea. This is not about nuances. Either you're dead or alive. If you're in between, you're not dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, that depends on your definition of dead
Quote:
Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, if my heart is kept beating then transplanted to another person, that means there was NOT a permanent termination of the biological function of my heart beating.

If I am declared dead, but my biological functions are maintained artificially until my organs can be harvested, am I dead?
Yes, that individual (not his organs); that consciousness is gone. Please don't get into science fiction woo woo stuff where someone becomes the person whose heart was transplanted into him. If a child dies from a car crash and his organs are transplanted, the parents don't think that their baby is still alive, even though his organs have helped someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy
Quote:
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I meant that there are opposites that are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no additional options between DEAD and ALIVE. There is no FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I said the more "educated" someone thinks he is, the more ignorant he becomes. :(
Sure there are options that aren't "dead or alive" depending on how you understand and define those words, but that wasn't the false dichotomy I was referring to anyway so you're weaseling.

The false dichotomy was that the only options were free will as Lessans understood it to be defined and determinism as Lessans defined it.
It's not a false dichotomy. You can't have free will and no free will, just like we can't be dead and alive (don't give me that weasel that it all depends on how you define it). Even when the heart stops, if the body is kept cool and one is brought back, he was in limbo but not dead. Therefore, the heart stopping is not necessarily the moment of death. Actual death is when the heart cannot be started again, or is not in the person's body anymore. Once a person is truly dead, he is no longer alive. And if will is not free, it can't be free. These are opposites even though the compatibilist view states we can have both. I want to reiterate that responsibility goes up with the knowledge that man's will is not free, not down.

Last edited by peacegirl; 02-07-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7812  
Old 02-07-2012, 09:52 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Actual death is when the heart cannot be started again.
What about people whose hearts are irreparably damaged, and so stop and cannot be re-started -- but their blood is kept circulating with a heart/lung machine until they get a heart transplant?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-07-2012), Spacemonkey (02-07-2012)
  #7813  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:02 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.
I addressed your non-response a long time ago, which stopped me from moving forward. Why can't you admit you're wrong LadyShea. This is not about nuances. Either you're dead or alive. If you're in between, you're not dead.
Again, that depends on your definition of dead

Quote:
Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
So, if my heart is kept beating then transplanted to another person, that means there was NOT a permanent termination of the biological function of my heart beating.

If I am declared dead, but my biological functions are maintained artificially until my organs can be harvested, am I dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy
Quote:
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no additional options between DEAD and ALIVE. There is no FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I said the more "educated" someone thinks he is, the more ignorant he becomes. :(
Sure there are options that aren't "dead or alive" depending on how you understand and define those words, but that wasn't the false dichotomy I was referring to anyway so you're weaseling.

The false dichotomy was that the only options were free will as Lessans understood it to be defined and determinism as Lessans defined it.
You cannot have both. Just like we can't be dead and alive (don't give me that weasel that it all depends on how you define it).
I am not weaseling. Medical doctors and scientists don't even agree on exactly what is dead and what is alive, and "dead" has changed over the years so much the line is blurrier than ever. So yes, it is very much a matter of definition.

The definition Lessans used for free will is not the only possible one, and neither is his definition of determinism the only possible one, so there are many more options depending on definitions.
Reply With Quote
  #7814  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
LadyShea, I can't even begin to answer your question. It doesn't even make sense. TLR, don't worry, you'll be here too. :wink:

It makes perfect sense.

You stated that the germinal substance was a biological physical substance with weight and mass that allows people to live again and again...and later clarified that it was "passed on" through gametes (sperm and ova).

So, what of those people who don't pass it on because they do not biologically reproduce? Do they live again and again or not?
This is not an individual thing where one person's ova and sperm are passed down so that only that person's progeny is born again. It doesn't work that way.
Reply With Quote
  #7815  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:33 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Well, that depends on how one defines dead and alive, doesn't it?

I am not going to apologize for my not being ignorant and illiterate just because nuance makes it difficult for you.
I addressed your non-response a long time ago, which stopped me from moving forward. Why can't you admit you're wrong LadyShea. This is not about nuances. Either you're dead or alive. If you're in between, you're not dead.
Again, that depends on your definition of dead

Quote:
Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Phenomena which commonly bring about death include old age, predation, malnutrition, disease, and accidents or trauma resulting in terminal injury. Bodies of living organisms begin to decompose shortly after death.
So, if my heart is kept beating then transplanted to another person, that means there was NOT a permanent termination of the biological function of my heart beating.

If I am declared dead, but my biological functions are maintained artificially until my organs can be harvested, am I dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, you don't have to be "educated" to understand false dichotomy
Quote:
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no additional options between DEAD and ALIVE. There is no FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is exactly what I was alluding to when I said the more "educated" someone thinks he is, the more ignorant he becomes. :(
Sure there are options that aren't "dead or alive" depending on how you understand and define those words, but that wasn't the false dichotomy I was referring to anyway so you're weaseling.

The false dichotomy was that the only options were free will as Lessans understood it to be defined and determinism as Lessans defined it.
You cannot have both. Just like we can't be dead and alive (don't give me that weasel that it all depends on how you define it).
I am not weaseling. Medical doctors and scientists don't even agree on exactly what is dead and what is alive, and "dead" has changed over the years so much the line is blurrier than ever. So yes, it is very much a matter of definition.
I know one thing, you can't be dead (not breathing and no heartbeat for an hour), and alive, at the same time. If I can't even past this, how will I ever get through these two chapters? :glare:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The definition Lessans used for free will is not the only possible one, and neither is his definition of determinism the only possible one, so there are many more options depending on definitions.
No LadyShea, you're 100% wrong. I think explaining this book is futile because I can see that you're not even trying to understand. You're telling me he's wrong. You're not questioning. So LadyShea is right. End of story. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #7816  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:38 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Where's that definition, Peacegirl?

What about Lessans' presuppositions on conscience, Peacegirl?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #7817  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Speaking of dead and alive. You said the "germinal substance" was gametes. Does that mean only those people who procreate get to live again and again?

What of those who die without procreating?
Well, I guess I'm out of luck ...
LadyShea, I can't even begin to answer your question. It doesn't even make sense. TLR, don't worry, you'll be here too. :wink:

It makes perfect sense.

You stated that the germinal substance was a biological physical substance with weight and mass that allows people to live again and again...and later clarified that it was "passed on" through gametes (sperm and ova).

So, what of those people who don't pass it on because they do not biologically reproduce? Do they live again and again or not?
This is not an individual thing where one person's ova and sperm are passed down so that only that person's progeny is born again. It doesn't work that way.
Oh, so the sperm and ova don't have anything to do with whether one lives again and again? It's not an actual physical process, but rather a spiritual one?
Reply With Quote
  #7818  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:40 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMMCXXII
Images: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

People have lived with no heartbeat for quite a while, and I suspect that you could keep someone alive for a while with neither heartbeat nor breathing if you had a way to oxygenate the blood you were circulating using a machine.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #7819  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:42 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The definition Lessans used for free will is not the only possible one, and neither is his definition of determinism the only possible one, so there are many more options depending on definitions.
No LadyShea, you're 100% wrong. I think explaining this book is futile because I can see that you're not even trying to understand. You're telling me he's wrong. You're not questioning. So LadyShea is right. End of story. :popcorn:
I said it was a false dichotomy. I demonstrated how it is a false dichotomy Can you show me it is not a false dichotomy, or are you just gonna weasel and throw more shit fits?
Reply With Quote
  #7820  
Old 02-07-2012, 10:43 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCCCLVIII
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I think explaining this book is futile because I can see that you're not even trying to understand. You're telling me he's wrong. You're not questioning. So LadyShea is right. End of story. :popcorn:
LadyShea is right. Lessans was ignored by all the people he presented his work to, because he was wrong, often spectacularly so. It didn't help that the book reads like the epitome of a crackpot manifesto.

Explaining this book is futile, because you are incapable of presenting this awful work in any better light.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-07-2012), Spacemonkey (02-07-2012)
  #7821  
Old 02-07-2012, 11:10 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I know one thing, you can't be dead (not breathing and no heartbeat for an hour), and alive, at the same time. If I can't even past this, how will I ever get through these two chapters? :glare:
You obviously have no idea how lung a heart/lung transplant takes.

There are people walking around today who went for hours with no heartbeat and no respiration. They were kept going by machines that circulated and oxygenated their blood while their hearts and lungs were replaced.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-08-2012), seebs (02-07-2012), Spacemonkey (02-07-2012)
  #7822  
Old 02-07-2012, 11:14 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMMCXXII
Images: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I know one thing, you can't be dead (not breathing and no heartbeat for an hour), and alive, at the same time. If I can't even past this, how will I ever get through these two chapters? :glare:
You obviously have no idea how lung a heart/lung transplant takes.

There are people walking around today who went for hours with no heartbeat and no respiration. They were kept going by machines that circulated and oxygenated their blood while their hearts and lungs were replaced.
Yeah. One of my friends had his heart not-beating for a while when he was in his late teens I think. He's 41 now. Not even a heart transplant, just some medical problem.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (02-07-2012)
  #7823  
Old 02-07-2012, 11:17 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Well of course I am applying knowledge. That's how knowledge works, it builds on itself.
Absolutely, until you derail it. :(
All she is derailing is the indoctrination. I suspect that you are presenting Lessans material to us pretty much the same way Lessans presented it to you. It worked in your case because you don't appear to have a critical thinking ability.
Your best target audience will be children.

Don't tell her that, do you want young kids growing up believing this stuff. :fuming: Next thing you know she'll be off somewhere trying to find young kids to read to. Shit, did I post that out loud?
I hope she does. It may be the only way she will get help.
Children will be raised so differently in the new world that ALL be healthy contributing members of society. The next generation will probably be the ones to bring this discovery to light.
You better get on it peacegirl, because the new generation is being taught the standard math and sciences in numbers greater than ever before. If you wait till they're grown they will give you far more grief than we have. And the major problem with Lessans book is it will get a poor reception from anyone that knows much of anything. So you are wasting your time here because we are mostly middle aged and above and we will never, ever, ever take Lessons seriously for even one second.

A sane person would have figured that out a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
  #7824  
Old 02-08-2012, 12:39 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I think explaining this book is futile because I can see that you're not even trying to understand. You're telling me he's wrong. You're not questioning. So LadyShea is right. End of story. :popcorn:
LadyShea is right. Lessans was ignored by all the people he presented his work to, because he was wrong, often spectacularly so. It didn't help that the book reads like the epitome of a crackpot manifesto.

Explaining this book is futile, because you are incapable of presenting this awful work in any better light.
No, that Peacegirl is incapable of presenting this work is irrevelant to the explination being futile. It is that because, as you said, the book it mostly totally wrong in so many ways that it would be difficult for even a sane person to begin to explain it to another sane person. Lucky for Peacegirl there are a few here who are almost as crazy as she is and are willing to entertain even the possability that Lessans knew something at all. After all you can't be a champion pool player without having something between the ears. However it is entirely possible to try to promote this book from a computer terminal in an institution. The record of the use is possibly very useful in the treatment of the patient, especially her imaginary life after her daddy passed away. She seems to have just as vivid an imagination as her father did.
Reply With Quote
  #7825  
Old 02-08-2012, 03:45 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.”
False dichotomy.
Of course you would say that. That's what I call an "educated" person. That's also why you, as an "educated person", tell me that I can be both dead and alive at the same time. :doh:
Wow, it's almost like neither Lessans nor his prophetess peacegirl have ever heard of, read about, or understand any of the many interpretations of Compatibilism...

I am shocked.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-08-2012), Spacemonkey (02-08-2012), Vivisectus (02-08-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.86931 seconds with 14 queries