A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 242

LadyShea · #**6026** 01-23-2012, 02:58 AM

No, I think she was being a smartass by assuring david that if what he believes is true (afferent vision) it can take being contested by efferent vision

thedoc · #**6027** 01-23-2012, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of what causes the light to fade out (which I'm not even contesting), it becomes less intense to where you can't see the object anymore if you are far enough away. Therefore the object has to be in view for it to be seen. You can't argue with this, and it does, in fact, support Lessans' claim of efferent vision.

Actually it does not support Lessans, an object could be 'in view', that is in a direct line of sight with no obstruction, but still not be seen because it is too faint (the light is not intense enough) to see. If efferent vision were true the brain could look out through the eyes and see the object because there is light surrounding it and it is in the 'field of view'. But with afferent vision, once the light is no longer intense enough the eye cannot detect enough photons to register an image, there is not enough signal to the brain. This is in fact what happens, an object that is too far away does not reflect enough photons in our direction to be detected by the eye, the light is not intense enough, as is stated in afferent vision.

davidm · #**6028** 01-23-2012, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...maybe it's time that we end the conversation.

What, again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry David. If afferent vision is correct it will hold up under scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

It's been scrutinized for hundreds of years. It's false. Every time we look at the moons of Jupiter or send a spaceship to Mars, it is proved false. You are wasting your time, and making both you and your father look very bad indeed.

I guess you didn't notice that she wrote "afferent" vision not "efferent". What about that mister high-and-mighty newpaper editor person? Are you now claiming that vision is not afferent?

Thanks Agnakuk, I just assumed she had written "efferent." It might be time for a new line of work, or else this thread has just reduced my brain to mush.

thedoc · #**6029** 01-23-2012, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you are the first poster on this forum to ever call me charming. That is very nice of you.

It is also additional evidence of her cognitive dysfunction. Possibly the most convincing evidence of all.

And additional evidence of your inherent nastiness.

Thanks, n.a. That was so sweet. You are such a charmer. It almost makes me want to take back all the true things I have said about you.

So I guess you are going to let all the untrue things stand?

If there were any I would surely let them stand. Alas, I have only ever spoken the truth about n.a, unseemly though it be.

And I will let that stand and not contest it at all.

Spacemonkey · #**6030** 01-23-2012, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...

If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).

The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Why didn't you answer any of the above questions? Why reply only to ignore them once more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

at the film

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Yes, the (P) reflection is moving but, according to optics, this light fades the farther away the object gets. Can you at least agree with that?

You've just contradicted yourself yet again. It's as if you haven't read a single thing I've said to you. If the (P)reflection consists of the photons at the film, and if those same photons were in the exact same position a moment beforehand, then they have been stationary and were not moving.

Your answers to questions (1) and (2) are still positing stationary light. If the photons at the film were in the exact same place a moment ago, then they haven't moved since that previous moment, have they? Question (3) isn't asking you about the (P)reflection. It is a general question, and you haven't actually answered it. And nothing I've asked has anything to do with fading light.

Thank you for making an attempt, but you'll need to try again. Do you understand why your answers are contradictory? Do you understand why your answers posit stationary light? I find it truly bizarre that you keep making the same mistake with the same questions, no matter how many times I explain that mistake.

Spacemonkey · #**6031** 01-23-2012, 04:18 AM

And how can the (P)reflection possibly be moving? How fast is it moving? Wasn't (P)reflection supposed to be instantaneous? Then how can it ever exist anywhere other than at the film/retina? And if it only ever exists at one place, then how can it move?

You seem very deeply confused about your own model. Here's an analogy for what I think you should be trying to say. Think of the mirror image/(P)reflection at the retina or film as being like a section of a river. That bit of river itself never moves, but always remains where it is, between its banks. But the molecules of water of which it consists are constantly moving, and constantly coming into and then leaving this section of the river. The river section at any given time consists of a different set of water molecules at each consecutive moment in time.

The 'image' at the film could be the same, existing only ever at the film and never moving, but consisting of individual photons which are constantly instantaneously appearing via (P)reflection at the film only to be replaced at the next moment by a new set of photons, always presenting the real-time appearance of the object. The mirror image at the film would then be constantly refreshing itself, just like the section of river.

This avoids stationary photons, for while the mirror image at the film was still at the film a moment ago, it then consisted of an older set of photons rather than the same ones. And the photons now comprising the image were not in that same position a moment ago. They either did not exist back then, or they existed somewhere else.

Is this what you've been trying to describe? Because if so, it would give you a non-contradictory set of answers to my questions. If not, then please explain what you are trying to say.

Angakuk · #**6032** 01-23-2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Thanks Agnakuk

naturalist.atheist · #**6033** 01-23-2012, 04:54 AM

Looks like the horse singing lessons are continuing.

naturalist.atheist · #**6034** 01-23-2012, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I find it truly bizarre that you keep making the same mistake with the same questions, no matter how many times I explain that mistake.

Do you really?

Spacemonkey · #**6035** 01-23-2012, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I find it truly bizarre that you keep making the same mistake with the same questions, no matter how many times I explain that mistake.

Do you really?

Of course I do. Do you think that's normal behaviour? (I'm not denying that it's normal for Peacegirl.)

Angakuk · #**6036** 01-23-2012, 06:46 AM

I think I get what you are saying Spacemonkey. Bizarre is not necessarily surprising. Maybe on the first go round, but after multiple iterations, while it ceases to surprise it remains bizarre.

Spacemonkey · #**6037** 01-23-2012, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think I get what you are saying Spacemonkey. Bizarre is not necessarily surprising. Maybe on the first go round, but after multiple iterations, while it ceases to surprise it remains bizarre.

Exactly.

Dragar · #**6038** 01-23-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remember peacegirl, you're not just supporting Lessans any more.

It's Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for the moons of Jupiter observations, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why we can land rockets on distant planets despite doing it 'wrong' if we believed Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why gravitational lensing lets us see the same galaxy in two parts of the sky with one a slightly older version of the other, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why the standard explanation for vision has never failed us. Plus a new one every time we consider virtually any experiment that involves vision over long enough distance for the finite speed of light to become important.

Lessans never wrote about those. You can't even imagine what they could be. For all intents an purposes, they're magic.

But you have added them, out of pure faith, to preserve your belief in Lessans. They have no independent evidence. Just your faith they exist.

You're not just supporting Lessans.

I'm not discussing the finite speed of light at this moment. I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

1. This isn't a respone to anything I've written. Are you happy with your magical mysterious reasons being new and in addition to Lessans?

2. Light (not wavelengths, herpderp) does travel indefinitely. We detect light that has been travelling for over 10 billion years. Are you happy to to contradict the entirety of modern physics too? Because that's what you are doing here.

peacegirl · #**6039** 01-23-2012, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remember peacegirl, you're not just supporting Lessans any more.

It's Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for the moons of Jupiter observations, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why we can land rockets on distant planets despite doing it 'wrong' if we believed Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why gravitational lensing lets us see the same galaxy in two parts of the sky with one a slightly older version of the other, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why the standard explanation for vision has never failed us. Plus a new one every time we consider virtually any experiment that involves vision over long enough distance for the finite speed of light to become important.

Lessans never wrote about those. You can't even imagine what they could be. For all intents an purposes, they're magic.

The finite speed of light should work on Earth. How could we see Columbus discovering America, for example, if the event has to be present to be resolved by the film. There is never a time that an object is out of view and the film can pick up a photograph from light alone. Explain this instead of going back to space and using the fact that the speed of light becomes important, when it's just as important here on Earth and we don't get the same results. When you can't manipulate variables, you are making inferences that could be false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

But you have added them, out of pure faith, to preserve your belief in Lessans. They have no independent evidence. Just your faith they exist.

You're not just supporting Lessans.

Yes there is evidence if you look carefully, and this evidence is more reliable.

peacegirl · #**6040** 01-23-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remember peacegirl, you're not just supporting Lessans any more.

It's Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for the moons of Jupiter observations, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why we can land rockets on distant planets despite doing it 'wrong' if we believed Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why gravitational lensing lets us see the same galaxy in two parts of the sky with one a slightly older version of the other, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why the standard explanation for vision has never failed us. Plus a new one every time we consider virtually any experiment that involves vision over long enough distance for the finite speed of light to become important.

Lessans never wrote about those. You can't even imagine what they could be. For all intents an purposes, they're magic.

But you have added them, out of pure faith, to preserve your belief in Lessans. They have no independent evidence. Just your faith they exist.

You're not just supporting Lessans.

I'm not discussing the finite speed of light at this moment. I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

1. This isn't a respone to anything I've written. Are you happy with your magical mysterious reasons being new and in addition to Lessans?

2. Light (not wavelengths, herpderp) does travel indefinitely. We detect light that has been travelling for over 10 billion years. Are you happy to to contradict the entirety of modern physics too? Because that's what you are doing here.

You haven't been listening to what I mean by (P) wavelengths. I never said that light doesn't travel indefinitely, but (P) light, which is the reflection off of the object, does not.

peacegirl · #**6041** 01-23-2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that I have read that counters anything Lessans said.

That might mean something if it weren't for your frequently-admitted reluctance (and at times, outright refusal) to read anything that contradicts Lessans' claims.

Lone, I told you that I accept all of the writings on the eye and brain except for this misunderstanding of how the brain works in relation to the eye. What do you expect, that I'm going to suddenly agree with what Lessans is disputing just because it's in a textbook?

peacegirl · #**6042** 01-23-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Here are the rules:

Quote:

Freethought Forum Rules

As stipulated in the registration agreement, the rules here are simple:

1. You may not post any messages or perform any action that impairs the functioning of the Freethought Forum.
For example:
Anything that disables the site from rendering properly
Anything that disrupts the functioning of the server (DOS attack, etc.)
Any content designed to corrupt members' computers (viruses, scripts, etc.)
Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)
2. You may not post any messages that contain content illegal in the United States.
For example:
Child pornography
Warez (pirated software)
Copyrighted content not covered by fair use provisions
3. You may not post any messages that violate the Freethought Forum Privacy Policy.
For example:
Member's undisclosed, personally identifying information

4. You may not post spam.

If you encounter a posted message which violates any of the above rules, you may alert us by clicking on the "Report" button (). Your report will be sent to the administrators via email.

By posted messages we mean any information transmitted via the Freethought Forum software, including private messages, emails, gallery, arcade, links, articles and journal entries and comments, and other current and future board resources. You may report any rule violations on other areas of the board by sending a private message to viscousmemories and/or livius drusus, or if it is not urgent, by sending an email to the admin mailbox.

If you suspect a crime has been committed, please read: How to Report Internet-Related Crime

Violations of these rules may be deleted on sight by the administrators.
Any member who has three rule violations will be banned.

The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion.

I don't see anything about ad-hominem attacks.

But here is the thing. If you are crazy then it is not an ad-hominem attack. Calling someone what they are is just an observation. So if you try to prosecute you will have to have your sanity checked. Only if you are found sane could my posts be seen in any way as attacks.

I've already offered to leave if you would see ThreeLawsSafe with me. But you refuse.

Why is that?

They should add no ad hominem attacks to their rule book, because it has no place in a serious discussion. It's unfortunate that morality has to be legislated. If anything, you could be called on

Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)

peacegirl · #**6043** 01-23-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.

Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts.

There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable online discourse, which we all know it's not. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, and I think it will be you when all is said and done. This is a clear warning that you better stop your nonsense for if you don't, it will be no surprise that the administrator is going to come after you.

NA, WOW I guess she told you, the admin. are coming after you and are going to throw you into virtual internet jail. I didn't know that 'empty threats' and 'virtual threats' were the same thing. I wonder how good the virtual food is in the internet prison, can you get a 'forum-release' while you are in?

Don't be so sure that just because something is said online, it won't have its day in court. There are new rules forming every day. In fact, someone just got charged in real court from a dispute online. They were spreading someone's copyrighted material all over the internet by hacking into this person's website. The defendant almost had to close down his business. Thank goodness this guy was prosecuted.

The only person posting copyrighted material on this thread has been you peacegirl. I hope you hold the copyright.

I didn't think you could increase my butthurt more than you already have, but you outdid yourself. :bow:

peacegirl · #**6044** 01-23-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Napolean XIV - They're Coming To Take Me Away - YouTube

Funnyyyyyyyyy!!!!! :laugh:

peacegirl · #**6045** 01-23-2012, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

peacegirl is hopelessly confused as usual.

No one here -- not a single person -- has used an ad hominem attack on you, ever. An ad hominem attack is NOT the same things as an INSULT. The ad hom is the claim that your argument is wrong because of some characteristic that you have; we, otoh, are saying that your arguments are wrong because they fail the test of reality.

And, even if people were ad homming you, they would not be banned or disciplined in any way. Can you not understand that this is an unmoderated forum? You should stop calling for moderation, for if moderation were indeed executed, the very first thing that would be done, is that your nonsensical threads would be locked.

That is exactly what he's doing. His premise is that I'm mentally incapacitated and using this as a reason for others to dismiss my argument. I am not doing the same. Content should not be banned (if people reject the content then they are free to ignore it), but attacks on another person (whether online or off) need to be regulated. Why do you think bullying as well as hate crimes have become such big issues in recent years?

peacegirl · #**6046** 01-23-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

Peacegirl is again providing us with a practical demonstration of the failure of Lessans' ideas. NA expresses genuine concern for her mental health. Peacegirl misinterprets this as an attack and retaliates, thereby making a first blow herself.

Spacemonkey, now I'm wondering if you have lost all sense of reality. You can't, in all honesty, tell me that NA has a genuine concern for my mental health. I'm not misinterpreting anything. I hope you're joking. I'm sure ThreeLawsSafe would have a different opinion, and I'm sorry to say that I value his professional opinion over yours.

thedoc · #**6047** 01-23-2012, 01:10 PM

Any computer experts out there? Is it possible for a user on one computer to link to a computer at a different location with a different IP address, there-by creating an account (sock) that appears to be a different account. I've seen references to things like this on TV and my son-in-law was going to establish a remote link from his computer to mine, so I was wondering if this was possible?

LadyShea · #**6048** 01-23-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Here are the rules:

Quote:

Freethought Forum Rules

As stipulated in the registration agreement, the rules here are simple:

1. You may not post any messages or perform any action that impairs the functioning of the Freethought Forum.
For example:
Anything that disables the site from rendering properly
Anything that disrupts the functioning of the server (DOS attack, etc.)
Any content designed to corrupt members' computers (viruses, scripts, etc.)
Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)
2. You may not post any messages that contain content illegal in the United States.
For example:
Child pornography
Warez (pirated software)
Copyrighted content not covered by fair use provisions
3. You may not post any messages that violate the Freethought Forum Privacy Policy.
For example:
Member's undisclosed, personally identifying information

4. You may not post spam.

If you encounter a posted message which violates any of the above rules, you may alert us by clicking on the "Report" button (). Your report will be sent to the administrators via email.

By posted messages we mean any information transmitted via the Freethought Forum software, including private messages, emails, gallery, arcade, links, articles and journal entries and comments, and other current and future board resources. You may report any rule violations on other areas of the board by sending a private message to viscousmemories and/or livius drusus, or if it is not urgent, by sending an email to the admin mailbox.

If you suspect a crime has been committed, please read: How to Report Internet-Related Crime

Violations of these rules may be deleted on sight by the administrators.
Any member who has three rule violations will be banned.

The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion.

I don't see anything about ad-hominem attacks.

But here is the thing. If you are crazy then it is not an ad-hominem attack. Calling someone what they are is just an observation. So if you try to prosecute you will have to have your sanity checked. Only if you are found sane could my posts be seen in any way as attacks.

I've already offered to leave if you would see ThreeLawsSafe with me. But you refuse.

Why is that?

They should add no ad hominem attacks to their rule book, because it has no place in a serious discussion. It's unfortunate that morality has to be legislated. If anything, you could be called on

Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)

If you want those rules, go to a forum that has them.

peacegirl · #**6049** 01-23-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

And that's exactly why there needs to be laws to stop people like you from spreading lies in order to fill some kind of sick need that you have. That's what bullies do, and you fit the profile perfectly.

peacegirl · #**6050** 01-23-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.

Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.

I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.

My, my.

No, I'm retaliating, and I am justified. I want him banned from this thread unless he stops bullying. It's as simple as that.

It's not going to happen. This is an unmoderated forum. If it were moderated, your nonsensical threads would have been locked hundreds of pages ago, just like they were every where else you posted.

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

If this were a situation were you could not walk away from it (like at your job or at school) then there might be some kind of protection. But you could walk away from it if you were sane. And if you can't walk away from it because you are insane and the bulling is that people want you to get help because they think you are insane, then I don't think there is a court in the land that would side with you.

If you are sane and you think you are being bullied then you can leave. You don't have to take it.

Or you could see ThreeLawsSafe with me and we could settle this once and for all.

You have lots of options, but getting people banned or threads closed or deleted because they are not going your way is not what happens on this forum.

Um, you don't know that yet. Like I said, if your MO doesn't change, then I leave. We'll see if I have any protection. It all depends on whether your ad hominen attacks are regarded as highly inappropriate under the forum rules.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Here are the rules:

Quote:

Freethought Forum Rules

As stipulated in the registration agreement, the rules here are simple:

1. You may not post any messages or perform any action that impairs the functioning of the Freethought Forum.
For example:
Anything that disables the site from rendering properly
Anything that disrupts the functioning of the server (DOS attack, etc.)
Any content designed to corrupt members' computers (viruses, scripts, etc.)
Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)
2. You may not post any messages that contain content illegal in the United States.
For example:
Child pornography
Warez (pirated software)
Copyrighted content not covered by fair use provisions
3. You may not post any messages that violate the Freethought Forum Privacy Policy.
For example:
Member's undisclosed, personally identifying information

4. You may not post spam.

If you encounter a posted message which violates any of the above rules, you may alert us by clicking on the "Report" button (). Your report will be sent to the administrators via email.

By posted messages we mean any information transmitted via the Freethought Forum software, including private messages, emails, gallery, arcade, links, articles and journal entries and comments, and other current and future board resources. You may report any rule violations on other areas of the board by sending a private message to viscousmemories and/or livius drusus, or if it is not urgent, by sending an email to the admin mailbox.

If you suspect a crime has been committed, please read: How to Report Internet-Related Crime

Violations of these rules may be deleted on sight by the administrators.
Any member who has three rule violations will be banned.

The administrators reserve the right to withdraw or deny membership at their discretion.

I don't see anything about ad-hominem attacks.

But here is the thing. If you are crazy then it is not an ad-hominem attack. Calling someone what they are is just an observation. So if you try to prosecute you will have to have your sanity checked. Only if you are found sane could my posts be seen in any way as attacks.

I've already offered to leave if you would see ThreeLawsSafe with me. But you refuse.

Why is that?

They should add no ad hominem attacks to their rule book, because it has no place in a serious discussion. It's unfortunate that morality has to be legislated. If anything, you could be called on

Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)

If you want those rules, go to a forum that has them.

It's unfortunate that both type forums have problems that could be corrected. In the moderated forums, the moderators have too much control and can arbitrarily end a thread because they have the power to do so. And in an unmoderated forum (which I like more than moderated), it goes too far the other way by allowing someone to spew lies about someone and get away with it. This type of bullying should be forbidden and added to the rules of proper behavior, because it interferes with free thought, which is the purpose of this forum.