A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not written in the book. He did not say that "our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor did he say "we can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead."

"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it."

Lessans did not say this either. Stephen is adding his own words.

Two people quoted the first statement independently in the other thread. The first statement ("our people, the Jews" etc.) was part of a question posed to Lessans by his imaginary conversant. The second ("You must remember" etc.) was the first sentence of Lessans' response to the imaginary conversant.

Curiously, in the other thread you responded to both people who quoted those statements. Conspicuously absent from those responses was any claim that the statements were made up.

That, of course, was because the statements weren't made up. Both statements appeared in the version of Lessans' book posted on Google Books, which included much of the "Our Posterity" chapter. I copied the material directly from there. Of course, that stuff isn't online anymore.

Now, it may be that the material you're falsely accusing me of making up doesn't appear in the current edition of Lessanetics. It may also be true that Lessans didn't write that stuff. You apparently take material out and put your own material in every time the wind blows. But let's not pretend that the material in question was never there, okay?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would be the point of lying?

You're a liar, peacegirl, and lying is simply what liars do. You don't need a point.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You did call him a big meanie though for laughing at the passage

"I have done a disservice to everyone in here by introducing you to this work."

~peacegirl

[davidm]

Hey, Maturin, don't overlook this part of peacegirl's response in the post that you linked:

I will say, once again, that you are the most jaded dude in here, aside from David.

Bold-faced mine.



I R Winnah -- AGAIN!

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, it turns out Daddy DID say the things you claimed he didn't. You've been caught out as a liar, though nothing new there. The only thing that's new is that there is no way for you to wriggle off the hook this time. Now what, twit?

I'll say again, as I said a long time ago in the other thread, peacegirl doesn't even understand Daddy Dumbkin's writings on death. I do. They are the same as those of Tom Clark at naturalism.org and Wayne Stewart, who has a whole book up on the subject. And all three are wrong, of course, though it's an interesting subject in the philosophy of personal identity to show why they are wrong.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

I R Winnah -- AGAIN!

You are indeed the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of jadedness. I bow to your mad, mad skillz in the venerated field of jade.

[davidm]

OTOH, though, you are an uneducated blowhard with a log up your ass. I'm not sure I can compete there, nor with LadyShea's vicious, Gestappo-like nature owing to her distraught childhood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not written in the book. He did not say that "our people, the Jews, cannot blame Hitler for slaughtering 6 million of us, nor did he say "we can we feel sorry for the dead because we are not dead."

"You must remember that anybody living who lost someone loved in this carnage will never get over it."

Lessans did not say this either. Stephen is adding his own words.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Two people quoted the first statement independently in the other thread. The first statement ("our people, the Jews" etc.) was part of a question posed to Lessans by his imaginary conversant. The second ("You must remember" etc.) was the first sentence of Lessans' response to the imaginary conversant.

You got me confused by your first comment. You were not specifying that it was the conversant. It should have ended in a question mark so I knew who was speaking. I knew it wasn't Lessans, and that's what threw me off. I'm just wondering why you even brought this up. This knowledge does not excuse what Hitler did. It prevents anyone else from becoming another Hitler.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Curiously, in the other thread you responded to both people who quoted those statements. Conspicuously absent from those responses was any claim that the statements were made up.

I automatically go into defensive mode because you can be very nasty, that's why.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That, of course, was because the statements weren't made up. Both statements appeared in the version of Lessans' book posted on Google Books, which included much of the "Our Posterity" chapter. I copied the material directly from there. Of course, that stuff isn't online anymore.

Thank goodness! Look at the problems that putting the book online caused. It wasn't even the same book when certain people [and they know who they are] got through with it. It was completely unrecognizable.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Now, it may be that the material you're falsely accusing me of making up doesn't appear in the current edition of Lessanetics. It may also be true that Lessans didn't write that stuff. You apparently take material out and put your own material in every time the wind blows. But let's not pretend that the material in question was never there, okay?

You're right. It was there. No reason to get bent out of shape.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would be the point of lying?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You're a liar, peacegirl, and lying is simply what liars do. You don't need a point.

I wasn't lying. I just didn't read it correctly. If you would just stop being a nasty *#$(*, we could actually have a good conversation. You bring up some good points when you're on good behavior.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

OTOH, though, you are an uneducated blowhard with a log up your ass. I'm not sure I can compete there, nor with LadyShea's vicious, Gestappo-like nature owing to her distraught childhood.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It is all part of God's Holy Plan for the Golden Age.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't lying. I just didn't read it correctly.

You are really a shameless little twat.


Hey, Maturin, rereading these oldies but goodies, you've got user titles to last you for years:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have definitely lived up to being a total son of a bitch, and nuts. You need help Stephen (I'm being serious) to find out why you get your jollies by being so cruel. You can't be a happy person and this vitriolic. Maybe being a lawyer has made you the cynical, nasty, hateful person you are. I hope you don't end up being a lonely old man (it wouldn't surprise me), but that's where you're headed. Laugh if you will, but the last laugh will be on you.

peacegirl is good for something -- supplying people with funny user titles!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

What page of butthurt are you talking about?

Even in the unlikely event Lessans' book had anything to contribute to the betterment of the human race, the presentation is such crap, so full of red flags like that whole quote, that no one can possibly take it seriously.

What red flags are you talking about? Do you mean his claim about the eyes? I have no idea what you understand since you don't participate.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm sorry, but neither Lessans nor especially you have any right to criticize skeptical thinking. A rebuke from either is enough to cause me to laugh. Where have you proven your scholarship to be adequate to tutor me?

I am not trying to tutor you. I happen to be a skeptic at heart. I question everything, but you have to someone a chance before turning away.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I accept criticism and advice from people I respect.

Why the anger?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. Like all versions of Utopia it sounds colorless and vapid.

Why would a world where there are no premature deaths due to murder, accidents, or medical errors be colorless and vapid? Regardless, we're not going to continue to have war, crime, and hatred just because people you think that without it, the world would be boring. Tell that to the mother who lost her child due to violence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even if it worked I would not enjoy a world where there are no more personalities, only loads of Lessanses pontificating at each other without having the slightest clue what they are talking about.

I bet they'd start fighting in a matter of minutes, actually. I don't see Lessans accepting someone else's "astute observations" and "underlying principles".

Instead of this getting easier it's getting harder. Why are you saying that people will have no personalities? That's not true. You have misinterpreted what he wrote and you're putting the blame on him, not yourself.

As far as astute observations go, people will not make claims unless they can back them up. In addition, the motivation to make claims just to get attention (like the trolls we see online) will be a thing of the past. So you're wrong again. No surprise.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I happen to be a skeptic at heart.

The only attribute I can think of that is as inappropriate for you to claim as skepticism is honesty.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1010804]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What page of butthurt are you talking about?

He was referring the the long Milton quote.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as astute observations go, people will not make claims unless they can back them up. In addition, the motivation to make claims just to get attention (like the trolls we see online) will be a thing of the past.

It's a good thing for you and Lessans that the age hasen't started yet or before your father started writing, none of this would be in print now.

[thedoc]

If we could somehow time warp Lessans book back to the time before he was born the 'Golden Age' would have been in full swing and he would never have written the book so we would not have had the book to time warp back in time so he would have written the book and we would again have to time warp it back in time to start the 'Golden Age' and prevent Lessans from writing the book but then we wouldn't have the book again to send back in time to prevent the book from being written so we are right back to where we started, I think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This disrespect seems to not exist when it is Lessans explaining why he is so incredibly clever: in that case it is merely stating the obvious. But if anyone wants to claim they are smarter than him that is a Major Ill that can only be adequately solved by eradicating the very words used from the vocabulary.

That's not why certain words are going to be removed? They only are removed because they are not accurate representations. You've taken it too far and that's why it feels like a restriction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I feel very hurt and disrespected when you assume that Lessans observations are so very astute, as it puts my observations in a category of minus, which deprives me of the respect that is my due. Because you have this category in your head, which by the way is occupied solely by your father, you are not even giving my observations the time of day! Surely we should stop calling one persons observations astute, as they imply a judgement and a hurt on all the other peoples observations before we have even examined them?

Astute: keenly perceptive or discerning; sagacious.

There is nothing wrong with the word "astute". But any of these words could be used detrimentally. For example, if you constantly tell one child that he is very astute, and never say that to the other child, that child may begin to feel that he isn't as smart. As a parent, you have to be very careful that you don't inadvertently make one child feel less important. As children get older, it gets easier because they [hopefully] understand that it's no reflection on them if they don't get the same compliment, nor does it mean they are loved any less.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What page of butthurt are you talking about?

What red flags are you talking about? Do you mean his claim about the eyes? I have no idea what you understand since you don't participate.

I am not trying to tutor you. I happen to be a skeptic at heart. I question everything, but you have to someone a chance before turning away.

I did find the whole quote from the book highly amusing. One big red flag is accusing skeptics of not being open minded enough. Every crank thinks he's Galileo. It's technically a legitimate warning, but it's only brought up in the context of Lessans' book because no one with any authority ever took him seriously.

...and the warning is only useful if the claim has any merit. Lessans book does NOT qualify.

The way to combat institutional wisdom is not to accuse the skeptics of being closed-minded, but to consistently produce evidence of your claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the anger?

Anger at myself being weak and responding to you. I happen to agree with naturalist.atheist - you have a mental illness which has manifested itself into a unswerving belief in your father's book, and in fact, you can hardly conceive of ideas that are not in your father's book.

Arguing with you is like arguing with my alzheimer's affected Grandmother, and exactly as pleasant. Only my unhealthy fascination with crap keeps me even reading this thread, and I'm reminding myself again that I probably shouldn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is from the chapter on the death discovery, which you never released to us but was found partially intact on Google Books leading you to take it down. Hence, the "super secret" crack.

I get it. Thanks LadyShea. It's not a super secret but I felt it would distract people from the main discovery, which it obviously did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you telling us an actual person actually said to Lessans "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."? That sounds like an imaginary conversation. If it was a real person, who was he and what is he doing now?

As far as I know it was real, but I'm not positive. I do know he got a letter from a woman with a heart condition and knew she was dying and could not thank him enough for this chapter. She said it gave her great comfort. I still have the letter, but I have to look for it. I don't think those were her words in the book though.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was referring the the long Milton quote.

Actually, peacegirl quoted the introduction in Lessans' book, which includes a long, incorrectly formatted quote from Milton. It's either Lessans or peacegirl who is butthurting, regardless of the source of the text.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have negative feelings toward the woo side, and have gone to the other side in the extreme.

This is quite true. Lady Shea was once a well respected Jedi Knight before she turned to the Dark Side.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...all in good time my sweet, all in good time.

Originally Posted by Lady Shea

I thought you wanted to discuss the principles...why do you let yourself get led down these paths?

Probably because she knows that she doesn't have the answers to adequately address the various critiques of Lessans principles so she engages the side-issues as a way of making herself feel like she is doing something useful for the cause.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I get tired just reading the thread.

Then don't read it. I have an idea. Why don't you just go take a nap, or something, and quit with the whining?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not trying to tutor you. I happen to be a skeptic at heart. I question everything,but you have to someone a chance before turning away except for anything that Lessans said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What page of butthurt are you talking about?

What red flags are you talking about? Do you mean his claim about the eyes? I have no idea what you understand since you don't participate.

I am not trying to tutor you. I happen to be a skeptic at heart. I question everything, but you have to someone a chance before turning away.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I did find the whole quote from the book highly amusing. One big red flag is accusing skeptics of not being open minded enough. Every crank thinks he's Galileo. It's technically a legitimate warning, but it's only brought up in the context of Lessans' book because no one with any authority ever took him seriously.

I put this quote in the book for that very reason. This book is valid, and the reason the super skeptical are doing more harm than good is because, in their effort to protect science, they prematurely throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

...and the warning is only useful if the claim has any merit. Lessans book does NOT qualify.

It actually does qualify.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The way to combat institutional wisdom is not to accuse the skeptics of being closed-minded, but to consistently produce evidence of your claims.

I've always said that empirical evidence is the actual proof. I don't think Milton was accusing anyone; he was just stating what's occurring in certain scientific circles. For anyone who didn't read the quote, here is the gist of it in two sentences:

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best
of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific
enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank
ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl
Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out
to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are
adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the
tyranny they seek to resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the
most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of
science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the anger?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Anger at myself being weak and responding to you. I happen to agree with naturalist.atheist - you have a mental illness which has manifested itself into a unswerving belief in your father's book, and in fact, you can hardly conceive of ideas that are not in your father's book.

Of course I can. What you're saying is that in order to conceive of ideas that are not in my father's book, I have to disagree with my father's book. How fair is that? I think due to natural.atheists' persistent pounding in your head that I'm mentally ill, you are actually starting to believe it. That shows how easy it is for even the most reflective to be swayed by words alone.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Arguing with you is like arguing with my alzheimer's affected Grandmother, and exactly as pleasant. Only my unhealthy fascination with crap keeps me even reading this thread, and I'm reminding myself again that I probably shouldn't.

Well then why not just leave? I'm sure you have the strength to do so. To feel compelled to stay in a thread that you despise is not healthy. I wouldn't do that to myself if I were you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Astute: keenly perceptive or discerning; sagacious.

Using that word in connection with Lessans is clearly an example of using a word that does not accurately reflect reality.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then why not just leave? I'm sure you have the strength to do so. To feel compelled to stay in a thread that you despise is not healthy. I wouldn't do that to myself if I were you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For someone who thinks psychiatry is the height of quackery you sure like to go Freud on people.

Well there is a lot of corruption in the field. You can't argue with that, but I'm sure you will. I'm not going Freud on anyone. I just believe that sometimes we go the complete opposite after a bad experience. I remember my sister-in-law always said yes to everyone. She began to feel like a doormat, so one day she decided she wasn't going to do this anymore. She went to the extreme by saying "no" to everyone, even if it was a small request. I am sure she found a middle ground eventually. I haven't seen her in a long time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to find a middle ground. You refuse to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt because you probably don't want to be fooled again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't fooled to begin with. I approached it all with an open mind, analyzed it, debated and discussed with adherents and detractors, and found it to be nothing but unsupported, and unsupportable, assertions. Lessans writings are in the same category.

Even when something is unsupportable at the moment, it can actually turn out to be true. Did you ever think of that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to speculate

Sure you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but my guess is that you were hurt by the quacks that claimed to be knowledgeable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, along with my distraught childhood, you believe I was hurt by quacks, and probably religious folks, too, leading to my hatred of believers. You should write a book detailing all these traumas you think I've been through.

No, not at all. I don't know you well enough to even begin to know what makes you tick. I was just speaking in generalities.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the shoe fits, eat the pudding.

I am, but I like chocolate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously Miss Open Mind, how much did you study Scientology before concluding it was a cult? Have you investigated Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, faith healing, astrology, spirit channeling, astral travel, Christianity, and the type of magic Wiccans and others believe to be possible? What is your critical analysis of all of them? What led you to conclude they are or are not true?

Because they are not proven at all. And a lot of them have a very dark side meaning they are destructive. But the majority of religions are helpful to people, even if there's no proof of a personal God. Christianity is a wonderful religion, even though I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. I try to see where all of the religions meet to gain any wisdom I can from them. But this discovery is different; it is undeniable and valid. It isn't just a faith based position.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

(That list is not exhaustive of the topics I have looked into)

That's quite a list. Just don't use your research to give up on this discovery, because there will be empirical proof, and one day the pudding will be yours to eat too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was right. Certain things appear self-evident to "scientific" minds

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Give a specific example of something "scientific" minds accept as self-evident.

Free will.