A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

K posting that in the Philolsophy thread made me and -FX- posting it here made me again because it reminded me of the mathematical, scientific and undeniable (that is to say, undeniable, undeniable and undeniable) right-of-way system devised by Seymour Lessans. As our old friend Vivisectus so adeptly demonstrated earlier in this thread, the right-of-way system compels the conclusion that a husband's desire to get all gooned up on crack cocaine and plow a stripper up the ass has the right-of-way over the wife's desire that the husband come with her to the hospital and attend the birth of their child.

Good times, I tell you wut.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

plow a stripper up the ass

NOT IN MY GOLDEN AGE

[Stephen Maturin]

The total incompatibility of a certain mammon-loving hack's pronouncements regarding the Golden Age and fundamental precepts such as the Butt Stuff Injunction is truly striking.

[peacegirl]

If anyone wants to read these chapters, you are all welcome. You can't listen to these instigators who have tried so hard to turn this knowledge into a joke. But they can't, no matter how hard they try.

file:///C:/Users/Janis/Downloads/The%20Secret%205-30-2024%20DIGITAL%205%20CHAPTERS.pdf

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

file:///C:/Users/Janis/Downloads/The%20Secret%205-30-2024%20DIGITAL%205%20CHAPTERS.pdf

Jesus H. Donkey Blowing Christ, are you dumb!

[ChuckF]

I'm reading it now

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Jesus H. Donkey Blowing Christ, are you dumb!

I’ve only ever seen that done as a joke. Holy shit.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

I’ve only ever seen that done as a joke. Holy shit.

It's unholy shit actually

[peacegirl]

Again, this is just another observation (there are too many to count) of a dog using his sense of smell, not his sight, to identify his owner. And it doesn’t need levers to prove it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/hKuThKpxtLGKSxRe/?

[specious_reasons]

My dog barks at people he sees walking by regardless if he's inside or outside, if they're making noise or quiet, or if they're up- or down-wind. When I'm outside and he can see me through the window, he will run to the door he thinks I'm entering. I'm not denying he has a keen sense of smell, but he can also see things just fine.

Somebody disguises themselves from their dog and the dog doesn't recognize them until the much stronger sense of smell clues them in? To think this proves dogs can't detect things by sight is still just insanity.

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this is just another observation (there are too many to count) of a dog using his sense of smell, not his sight, to identify his owner. And it doesn’t need levers to prove it.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/hKuThKpxtLGKSxRe/?

Do you believe that if a dog can recognize someone by scent this proves that they are incapable of recognizing someone by sight?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

My dog barks at people he sees walking by regardless if he's inside or outside, if they're making noise or quiet, or if they're up- or down-wind. When I'm outside and he can see me through the window, he will run to the door he thinks I'm entering. I'm not denying he has a keen sense of smell, but he can also see things just fine.

That's only because your dog resents Seymour Lessans for messing with his worldview.

[ceptimus]

Don't believe everything specious tells you. He likely has a whole collection of levers concealed in his house that he's not telling us about.

[seebs]

Oh, very good, nearly three months this time. Keep trying, we believe in you!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

He likely has a whole collection of levers concealed in his house that he's not telling us about.

I knew it. I fucking KNEW IT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Do you believe that if a dog can recognize someone by scent this proves that they are incapable of recognizing someone by sight?

Not at all, but there is no empirical proof whatsoever that dogs can recognize through sight alone. Nada!!

[Crumb]

Is there empirical evidence that they can't?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Is there empirical evidence that they can't?

Yes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

Oh, very good, nearly three months this time. Keep trying, we believe in you!

I know you do. That's why I'm being kind enough to share Lessans' 5th book in an effort to clarify the concepts. I don't know how biased you are, but I'll give it a try. Maybe you'll get something out of it, but I have my doubts. P.S. This forum has gone to the dogs literally! Could it be because of the bad-mouthing and ad hominems? It needs a major overhaul!

Adobe Acrobat

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Is there empirical evidence that they can't?

A long dead, pathologically horny aluminum siding salesman from Maryland said they can't. What more do you need?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Can you provide it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Can you provide it?

It’s right there in Chapter Three. Don’t ask me to spoon feed this to you!

Adobe Acrobat

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It’s right there in Chapter Three. Don’t ask me to spoon feed this to you!

Adobe Acrobat

The correct answer to your question is "My empirical evidence is my Daddy is very smart."

Lessans even writes he doesn't have empirical evidence. Scientists were supposed to be so impressed with his logic they would eventually provide the empirical proof. (IIRC, I may be wrong, but I'm not going to read it again to find out.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The correct answer to your question is "My empirical evidence is my Daddy is very smart."

Yes, he was knowledgeable but that is not the empirical evidence, and you know it. Why are you holding his intellectual ability against him, and why are you using the most idiotic standard to judge his knowledge? Just because he was my father doesn't disqualify him.

Originally Posted by specious reasons

Lessans even writes he doesn't have empirical evidence. Scientists were supposed to be so impressed with his logic they would eventually provide the empirical proof. (IIRC, I may be wrong, but I'm not going to read it again to find out.)

He never said anything about empirical evidence. He never even used the word in his books. He was an observer and a voracious reader of literature and philosophy. His reasoning had no flaws, although he was quick to admit where he made a mistake in the extension of the basic principle in the economic system (regarding retirement), but this alone did not negate the very foundation of his discovery. Moreover, how can anyone prove that determinism or free will is true by the double-blind scientific method? You can't, although empirical proof will be the ultimate arbiter of truth when this knowledge is confirmed sound and applied globally, for then it will be shown that peace on earth is not a pipe dream, but a reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all, but there is no empirical proof whatsoever that dogs can recognize through sight alone. Nada!!

We gave you links years ago to scientific studies demonstrating that dogs can recognize their human partners in photographs and on video.

Oh, and back, peacegirl. All aboard the !