Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #10301  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:29 AM
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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
:lol:

If environment plays a role in sexual orientation, then why shouldn't we believe that heterosexual relations will decline? And that homosexual relations will increase? Or that something else altogether will happen, or that nothing much will change at all with regard to sexual orientation and relatios? What the fuck is the basis for his claim?

Nothing! Just old Seymour pulling it out of his ass again, just like he did his smiling molecules of light!
No, the truth is that more people are heterosexual. That's just the way it is, although everybody deserves equal treatment regardless, and that's exactly what the world is gravitating toward. And he never said light is static. You just want to make fun and put him in a bad light. You can't stand that he might be right. Why else would you keep coming back with insult after insult?
More people are heterosexual. So what? Why should Daddy's bogus utopia mean that the people who are gay, will stop being gay? You have no idea, do you? All you have is his idiotic say so. He gave no reason why this should be so -- just that it would be so! So sayeth Seymour!
Nobody said that people would stop being gay. You missed the point. Anyway, I took that sentence out. We're calling it close. I'm resubmitting it on Monday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
And yes, he DID say that light is static when it arrives at earth. This is a thoroughly idiotic claim, but unlike you, at least he posited that light does something when it arrives at earth. According to you, it is not absorbed, it is not reflected, it does not travel and it does not cease to exist! Apparently you have failed to notice that there are no other options for the behavior of photons, other than all the options that you have ruled out!
He did not say that light is static anywhere in the book. Light is reflected but it does not have the pattern of the object in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Just go check back where he says that the SAME light that falls on the earth while we sleep, "smiles" on us when we wake up! What does that mean, other than that he thought that light stopped and hung around when it arrived on earth? What, peacegirl? Once again, you have no idea, am I right?
Don't you know what a metaphor is? This is what he said and there was no implication that photons just hang around, unless you want to make it appear that way, which you are obviously trying to do.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 116-118

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star
Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been
turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we
would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment —
although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes
afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star;
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us. Upon hearing this explanation,
someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars,
would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon?”
Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our
rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that
it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these
photons are already present.


If the sun were to explode while we were
looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes
later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not
because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the
last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large
enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.
This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered
a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound
from an airplane to reach our ears when it is one thousand feet away
than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred
with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light.

If it
was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet
as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there
would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the
first time because the picture would be in the process of being
transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do
not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the
optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it takes
the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or
distant stars. To sum this up — just as we have often observed that
a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a distance
because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so
likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope
and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but
not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles
a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips
impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because
Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the
scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning
fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how
else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when
they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they
given any choice? Let me prove in still another way that the eyes are
not a sense organ.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize his
master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man is able
to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists. The answer
will be given shortly however let me make one thing absolutely clear.

The knowledge revealed thus far although also hidden behind the door
marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ is not what I referred to as
being of significance. Frankly, it makes no difference to me that the
eyes are not a sense organ, that our scientists got confused because of
it, and that a dog cannot identify his master from a picture. What
does mean a great deal to me — when the purpose of my discovery is
to remove all evil from the world (which word is symbolic of any kind
of hurt that exists in human relation) — is to demonstrate how
certain words have absolutely no foundation in reality, yet they have
caused more suffering and unhappiness than can be readily imagined.
Let me explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
And, as to his claim that it is a mathematical certainty that married couples will no longer share the same bed: since this is a mathematical claim, would you care to show the equation that describes and predicts this amazing phenomenon? Because Seymour sure didn't show it! And if there is no equation, there is no math.

I guess Seymour just didn't grok that fact! :lol:
He didn't claim that all couples will not share a bed. Why can't you read? I swear I don't know how in the world you are an editor. You don't need math per se for something to be mathematical or undeniable through sound reasoning, which Lessans clarified on page 3. I changed the sentence that was giving you problems:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part p. 360

However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
That’s right! Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will
no longer be a requirement of marriage.
This is no different than
other mathematical problems. If you understand what it means that
man’s will is not free and are able to perceive and extend the
mathematical relations thus far, you will easily see the reason for
this. Take note.
If after making love our partner wishes to sleep alone, this
desire has the right-of-way over our desire to have our partner
sleep by our side since this is a judgment of what is right for the
other.
Reply With Quote
  #10302  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:33 AM
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

Peacegirl, can you confirm whether or not you are already in institutional care?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10303  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:38 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Since he concluded that homosexual unions would "naturally declined once blame is removed from the environment" he very clearly assumed that homosexuality is caused by an environment that includes blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So what? What is so wrong about saying that homosexuality will naturally decline when there is no more blame or judgment?
It's a faulty conclusion because the premise is not conceded or evidenced.
But that's what you say about the entire book; that it's not evidenced so it's a faulty conclusion or a conclusion that comes from conjecture. But I do see your point when it comes to writing anything that could be misinterpreted. The last thing I want to do is turn people off unnecessarily, especially an entire group of people.
If you genuinely do not want to turn people off from the book then disassociate yourself from it completely. Revert to the original manuscript, and leave it as is or get a competent editor. Having an obvious crazy person associated so closely to the book as editor and promoter is putting people off.
Reply With Quote
  #10304  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:42 AM
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
I am not trying to make him a bad guy I am trying to figure out what it was he thought about homosexuality by reading what he wrote about it. You indicated he made some kind of hypothetical "if" statement, but he didn't.

According to the words he wrote he assumed that homosexuality would decrease in the Golden Age, and he assumed the decrease would somehow be directly caused by the removal of blame from the environment.

Available evidence indicates that homosexual relationships should increase in a no-blame environment. The prevalence of homosexuality is consistently about 10% of the population, however due to societal judgments and taboos many do not enter homosexual relationships or unions. Remove the judgment and you increase the relationships. It's the only assumption that makes sense.
It could be true that a no blame environment will allow people to come out of the closet and be themselves. Either way, a no blame environment will allow everyone to be free to do what they want in their life, without anyone passing judgment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If there is a homophobe or bad guy here it is YOU. Your statement "Turning to the gay world" is a clear indication that you adhere to the "lifestyle choice" dogma.
I don't adhere to any lifestyle dogma. Live and let live is my motto. The point of the book is not to figure out the motivation of why people are the way they are. It is about creating a world where it won't matter, because there will be no critical judgment henceforth. People will be able to live out their lives in total freedom. The only boundary that they will put on themselves is this hurt to others, which they will never want to cross under the changed conditions. Loving someone, whether gay or straight, doesn't hurt anyone so it's not even an issue.

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-24-2012 at 04:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10305  
Old 06-24-2012, 02:08 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He did not say that light is static anywhere in the book. Light is reflected but it does not have the pattern of the object in it.
1. As has been repeatedly explained to you, science does not say that there is a pattern of an object in light.

2. You have repeatedly said that light is not reflected. Therefore, you contradict The Great Man.

Quote:

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our
rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that
it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these
photons are already present.
What does that passage mean, peacegirl? What? The photons are already present. We don't have to wait for more photons to arrive, because the photons are hanging around, waiting to smile on us when we wake up!

:lol:

Quote:
He didn't claim that all couples will not share a bed. Why can't you read?
Can't I read? Let's see who can't read. It seems you selectively bolded the wrong part! Here, let me call your attention to it, with a bold-face of my own:

Quote:

However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
Reply With Quote
  #10306  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:16 AM
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

repeat

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-24-2012 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10307  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:20 AM
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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He did not say that light is static anywhere in the book. Light is reflected but it does not have the pattern of the object in it.
1. As has been repeatedly explained to you, science does not say that there is a pattern of an object in light.

2. You have repeatedly said that light is not reflected. Therefore, you contradict The Great Man.
He only said that the image does not get reflected. Don't call this a strawman, because it's not. Light is light, yes, but patterns don't travel. Only the full spectrum of light energy travels and gets reflected.

Quote:

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our
rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that
it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these
photons are already present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
What does that passage mean, peacegirl? What? The photons are already present. We don't have to wait for more photons to arrive, because the photons are hanging around, waiting to smile on us when we wake up!

:lol:
That's not even what he wrote.

Quote:
He didn't claim that all couples will not share a bed. Why can't you read?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Can't I read? Let's see who can't read. It seems you selectively bolded the wrong part! Here, let me call your attention to it, with a bold-face of my own:

Quote:

However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed. It just means that they will desire to give each other the opportunity to sleep separately, if that is their preference. In this society, people are expected to sleep in the same bed if they're married.
Reply With Quote
  #10308  
Old 06-24-2012, 05:31 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10309  
Old 06-24-2012, 11:50 AM
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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
You are completely mistaken, as usual. If you read the entire excerpt you would see exactly what he meant. It will be impossible for anyone to impose on the other if a successful marriage is the goal. Having only one bed doesn't take into consideration the possibility that someone might desire sleeping alone. This requirement of marriage has never been properly analyzed. It was assumed that once you are married, this is what both parties would want. By following the principles, it is seen that both desires will need to be considered at all times, and if one person desires that the other sleep with him, but the other is not in the mood, the right-of-way goes to the person who is making no demands.
Reply With Quote
  #10310  
Old 06-24-2012, 12:39 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
You are completely mistaken, as usual.
You are completely delusional as usual, cannot follow the simple meanings of words as usual, and are disagreeing with Lessans as usual. When Lessans says that it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them, that means couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed. That is quite simply what his words mean. Maybe he, like you, wrote something other than what he meant, but what he actually wrote is very clear. And you are disagreeing with it.

And where were those red photons?

Can you confirm that you are presently in institutional care?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10311  
Old 06-24-2012, 12:43 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He only said that the image does not get reflected. Don't call this a strawman, because it's not.
Of course it is. It's a strawman because science doesn't claim that the image gets reflected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is light, yes, but patterns don't travel. Only the full spectrum of light energy travels and gets reflected.
So what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10312  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:21 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
You are completely mistaken, as usual.
You are completely delusional as usual, cannot follow the simple meanings of words as usual, and are disagreeing with Lessans as usual. When Lessans says that it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them, that means couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed. That is quite simply what his words mean.
Are you crazy or in need of institutional care? Obviously you are, if you can't even grasp this simple explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Maybe he, like you, wrote something other than what he meant, but what he actually wrote is very clear. And you are disagreeing with it.

And where were those red photons?
They are right at the retina as long as the object is present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Can you confirm that you are presently in institutional care?
Not only am I disagreeing with it, after reading your posts I am sorry to say it is YOU that needs institutional care. Have you signed up?
Reply With Quote
  #10313  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:23 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He only said that the image does not get reflected. Don't call this a strawman, because it's not.
Of course it is. It's a strawman because science doesn't claim that the image gets reflected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is light, yes, but patterns don't travel. Only the full spectrum of light energy travels and gets reflected.
So what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?
Not only are we in the wrong thread, but I refuse to talk to someone who tries to make me the one who has the problem. You must be in la la land. :doh:
Reply With Quote
  #10314  
Old 06-24-2012, 01:45 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
You are completely mistaken, as usual.
You are completely delusional as usual, cannot follow the simple meanings of words as usual, and are disagreeing with Lessans as usual. When Lessans says that it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them, that means couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed. That is quite simply what his words mean. Maybe he, like you, wrote something other than what he meant, but what he actually wrote is very clear. And you are disagreeing with it.

And where were those red photons?

Can you confirm that you are presently in institutional care?
it's really something, isn't it? I mean, it just makes one go "Wow!" This woman is completely off her rocker.

LESSANS: .....for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.

PEACEGIRL: There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.

I mean, seriously, WTF? Can you not read plain English, peacegirl? Read your father's words again very slowly. Mouth them out aloud, if it helps you. Then compare what he said, with your description of what he said. Do you see a little problem? :lol:

Seriously, you must have advanced cognitive impairment.

Not only is Lessans claiming that husbands and wives won't desire to sleep in the same bed. He is asserting that it is mathematically impossible that they should desire to do so -- which means logically impossible that they should have such a desire. That is what Lessans wrote. And, in the very next breath, you deny the plain meaning of his words! Do you wonder why EVERYONE here thinks you are nuts? Really?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (06-24-2012)
  #10315  
Old 06-24-2012, 02:25 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

Once you are convinced that some criticism is valid, you then make changes or omissions. You changed molecules of light to photons of light (while leaving the clear assertion that once the photons are here they "stay" here) and now you've removed the references to homosexuality, which you defended as Lessans words over and over again until suddenly claiming them as your own. How much more was added, omitted, or changed unilaterally by you that you haven't admitted to yet?

Did you change the "trillions and trillions of babies have been born" as well? IIRC that also suddenly became your addition only after you tried to defend it as Lessans simply "miscalculating". You admitted to authorship of most, but not all, of the ridiculous conversations...but did you put anything in the text indicating which were "true experiences" and which were imaginary illustrations?

And you expect anyone to believe you when you say you aren't a co-author and that you've only added a few examples. We have no way of knowing what Lessans actually thought or wrote because too many times you've suddenly claimed something as yours. For all we know you omitted or changed huge chunks of text in an effort to hide Lessans insanity...or maybe you even wrote the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-24-2012), Spacemonkey (06-24-2012)
  #10316  
Old 06-24-2012, 02:29 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I wonder if she plans to omit the part in the Fabled Hidden Chapter wherein The Great Man asseverates that the Jews should have no beef with the Holocaust, because they are all still alive, albeit as someone else and don't even remember being Holocaust-era Jews! :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #10317  
Old 06-24-2012, 02:50 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
However, there is one change
about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will
absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the
great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are
about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth
for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.
What part of that plain statement is opaque to you, peacegirl?
There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.
Yes it does, Peacegirl. That is exactly what those words mean. It may not be what you think Lessans wanted to say, but it is exactly what he actually wrote (unless this is another instance of your own 'editorial' additions).
You are completely mistaken, as usual.
You are completely delusional as usual, cannot follow the simple meanings of words as usual, and are disagreeing with Lessans as usual. When Lessans says that it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them, that means couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed. That is quite simply what his words mean. Maybe he, like you, wrote something other than what he meant, but what he actually wrote is very clear. And you are disagreeing with it.

And where were those red photons?

Can you confirm that you are presently in institutional care?
it's really something, isn't it? I mean, it just makes one go "Wow!" This woman is completely off her rocker.

LESSANS: .....for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.

PEACEGIRL: There is nothing wrong with that statement. It does not mean that couples won't desire to sleep together in one bed.

I mean, seriously, WTF? Can you not read plain English, peacegirl? Read your father's words again very slowly. Mouth them out aloud, if it helps you. Then compare what he said, with your description of what he said. Do you see a little problem? :lol:

Seriously, you must have advanced cognitive impairment.

Not only is Lessans claiming that husbands and wives won't desire to sleep in the same bed. He is asserting that it is mathematically impossible that they should desire to do so -- which means logically impossible that they should have such a desire. That is what Lessans wrote. And, in the very next breath, you deny the plain meaning of his words! Do you wonder why EVERYONE here thinks you are nuts? Really?
Nooooo David, that's not right. You are misinterpreting this sentence, and you can't accept that you are the one that is wrong. It is logically impossible that they should desire one bed (not that they should have a desire sleeping together), now that they have the knowledge that by desiring only one bed, it can only do harm to their marriage. Can't you get this, or is it too hard because Lessans said it, and anything Lessans says, according to you, must be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #10318  
Old 06-24-2012, 03:02 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
Once you are convinced that some criticism is valid, you then make changes or omissions. You changed molecules of light to photons of light (while leaving the clear assertion that once the photons are here they "stay" here) and now you've removed the references to homosexuality, which you defended as Lessans words over and over again until suddenly claiming them as your own. How much more was added, omitted, or changed unilaterally by you that you haven't admitted to yet?
He did mention homosexuality in one sentence (it was a neutral reference), but it was taken the wrong way, so I decided to omit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Did you change the "trillions and trillions of babies have been born" as well? IIRC that also suddenly became your addition only after you tried to defend it as Lessans simply "miscalculating". You admitted to authorship of most, but not all, of the ridiculous conversations...but did you put anything in the text indicating which were "true experiences" and which were imaginary illustrations?
I did not admit to authorship of the conversations, and they are not ridiculous. I could nitpick away too. Where did you come up with the idea that these conversations are ridiculous LadyShea? Explain yourself. He did have conversations with a rabbi, priest, Durant, and many professors. etc. But the dialogue format was written in order to anticipate the questions people would have and to make it easier reading. As I said before, he also wrote a book claiming he came from outer space. Does this mean his knowledge is false? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And you expect anyone to believe you when you say you aren't a co-author and that you've only added a few examples. We have no way of knowing what Lessans actually thought or wrote because too many times you've suddenly claimed something as yours. For all we know you omitted or changed huge chunks of text in an effort to hide Lessans insanity...or maybe you even wrote the whole thing.
I did not change huge chunks. I kept the concept intact and only added a few sentences or examples to clarify certain points that were already made. When are you going to put your suspicion to rest? That's why I wrote this, but you conveniently forgot:

Please note that when the 20th century is mentioned, it is in
reference to the time period when this discovery was first
uncovered. This book was meant to be read through the eyes of the
author. His prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered
from all evil was based on the hope that a thorough investigation
would have already taken place. Although it has been more than
50 years since this prediction was made, there has been no such
investigation and, as of yet, this discovery remains unknown. Due
to the time lapse since the book’s last printing the editor has added
some recent examples to show how these principles apply to our
current world situation, but please be assured that the actual
discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the
author’s own words.
For purposes of consistency the personal
pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No
discrimination was intended.
Reply With Quote
  #10319  
Old 06-24-2012, 03:35 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

I don't know which is more interesting, peacegirls illness that has had her denying the obvious from page one or the posters who haven't been able to see just how dysfunctional she is after all she has posted.
Reply With Quote
  #10320  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:23 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
I did not admit to authorship of the conversations, and they are not ridiculous.
You wrote this when I made fun of the ridiculous "Oh look, here comes a Rabbi!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Also ridiculous is the stupid suck ups participating in these imaginary discussions "I feel like crying from sheer joy!" and "I see your argument is flawless, though I thought I had found a flaw"

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I kept the concept intact and only added a few sentences or examples to clarify certain points that were already made. When are you going to put your suspicion to rest?
This is not the first time, or even second or third time, you've suddenly stated "I wrote that" after maintaining whatever passage were Lessans words. You've repeatedly lied about what you've added and/or changed therefore everything you say is suspect.

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-24-2012 at 04:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (06-24-2012), Spacemonkey (06-24-2012)
  #10321  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:29 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He only said that the image does not get reflected. Don't call this a strawman, because it's not.
Of course it is. It's a strawman because science doesn't claim that the image gets reflected.
Then what is the pattern that strikes our retina Spacemonkey (even when the object is no longer present), if not an electric image that supposedly bounces off the object and travels through space and time (which is just another way of saying the same thing)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is light, yes, but patterns don't travel. Only the full spectrum of light energy travels and gets reflected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?
You still don't get it, do you?
Reply With Quote
  #10322  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:37 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
I did not admit to authorship of the conversations, and they are not ridiculous.
You wrote this when I made fun of the ridiculous "Oh look, here comes a Rabbi!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Also ridiculous is the stupid suck ups participating in these imaginary discussions "I feel like crying from sheer joy!" and "I see your argument is flawless, though I thought I had found a flaw"
Writing the book in dialogue was for the purpose of helping to anticipate the questions the reader may have, and to make the book as reader friendly as possible. It was not meant as some kind of proof. Most of the dialogue (when he was answering questions from his friend) was fictional, although he did talk to rabbis and priests, as well as professors and Ph.'Ds. He did talk to Eric Johnson from the Motion Pictures Association. He did talk to Will Durant on the phone while he was living. He did have a revelation in November of 1959. The guy did go to the exposition and saw a sign that read: The eyes are not a sense organ. I also believe the example he gave regarding Rigel was in an encylopedia, although I can't verify it. So what are you complaining about LadyShea, as if the dialogue format was anything other than a method to get this knowledge across in the easiest and most palatable way possible? :(

Quote:
I kept the concept intact and only added a few sentences or examples to clarify certain points that were already made. When are you going to put your suspicion to rest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is not the first time, or even second or third time, you've suddenly stated "I wrote that" after maintaining whatever passage were Lessans words. You've repeatedly lied about what you've added and/or changed therefore everything you say is suspect.
I only added some examples (which I was forthright about), or a sentence here and there to make for smoother reading. I did not change the major concepts which I was afraid of, so I took extra precaution for that very reason. I had to compile seven books and I believe I did a good job of explaining his work. If I added a few sentences, it doesn't make me a liar or a co-author. I tried very hard not to change any of his wording, even though some of the examples might be a little outdated. Who cares as long as the discovery is genuine. That's what counts, not the things you are disgruntled about.

Last edited by peacegirl; 06-24-2012 at 07:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10323  
Old 06-24-2012, 04:48 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Even if I was the one that made this dialogue up because I anticipated the questions that were going to be asked Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
"Even if"? Does that mean you don't remember which parts you wrote and which ones you didn't?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (06-24-2012), Spacemonkey (06-24-2012)
  #10324  
Old 06-24-2012, 05:01 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He only said that the image does not get reflected. Don't call this a strawman, because it's not.
Of course it is. It's a strawman because science doesn't claim that the image gets reflected.
Then what is the pattern that strikes our retina Spacemonkey (even when the object is no longer present), if not an electric image that supposedly bounces off the object and travels through space and time (which is just another way of saying the same thing)?
Light strikes our retina. Light from different sources and directions has different qualities (intensity and wavelength, location where it hits the retina). These differences in the light that strikes the retina causes a pattern to form on the retina but are not a pattern or "electric image" that exists while the light is traveling

I tried to explain it using an analogy of throwing paint at a canvas. Different colors in different amunts thrown from different directions and different distances will determine the pattern that forms on the canvas, right? Is the pattern in the paint as it travels? No, it's just traveling paint...the pattern doesn't happen until some of it hits the canvas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light is light, yes, but patterns don't travel. Only the full spectrum of light energy travels and gets reflected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?
You still don't get it, do you?
Get what? You've never answered the question, you've only offered your strawman about patterns not traveling. We know that.

I repeat his question, what happens to the nonabsorbed light that has hit an object, if it doesn't get reflected and can't travel away? Where is it at the next moment in time?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-24-2012), Spacemonkey (06-24-2012)
  #10325  
Old 06-24-2012, 05:09 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
So what are you complaining about LadyShea
The dialog was not noted as being fictional in the book, and in some cases you've stated some dialogs were "true experiences" so the reader cannot tell the difference. Writing fictional dialog as if they were factual encounters with real people is dishonest. You've also claimed to be the author of some criticized passages only after you saw the criticism was valid, prior to that you said they were Lessans own words, so you lied about your contributions repeatedly. Why should I not suspect dishonest people of dishonesty? Why should I believe you didn't change everything or anything?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 08:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.05753 seconds with 14 queries