A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is all you are saying, then you do not appear to be saying anything useful. The truth value of a claim is not conditional upon the desirability of the consequences attendant upon the truth of said claim. The mere fact that a particular understanding of determinism may be used (validly or invalidly) to excuse undesirable behavior has no bearing on the truth value of that particular understanding of determinism.

QFT

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "in here"? Vivisectus gave you a link to a totally different forum full of philosophers, and you said you wouldn't go there. In fact you said any philosophers you contacted would have to buy the book...which is a very strange way of having a work academically reviewed. Did you contact any of them as you said were going to?

Speaking of which, what happened with the academic you said you were talking to?

I called a few people but they weren't available. I did get in touch with one philosopher so we'll see. This is not the only field I'm going to market this book to. I am going to market it to the general public because it can help people in their present lives, not just when the new world gets here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. That's exactly what you said. Let me quote your exact words:

"If you say something caused you to do something, it implies that you did it not because you wanted to, but because it made you do it."

Yes, I said this and it was correct. Okay so take out the word imply. The point I was making stands. People can use the standard definition as an excuse for sub-optimal choices, which would have to be excused. How can we excuse behavior that hurts people? We can't. That's why we have a penal system.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh, and you seem to have 'skipped' over another part of my post. I asked you:

Has anyone PM'd you and told you to stay? If not, then why are you still here?

I don't want to talk to you anymore Spacemonkey. You are ruining it for yourself. I would never tell you whether someone pm'd me or not. It's none of your business.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't ask who you talked to, I am wondering what he/she had to say about the book.

I have not sent the book to anyone yet. If I think they are objective thinkers, I will send them the book for free.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The obvious corollary to the claim that "nothing can make you do something if you don't want to" is that if you do something it is because you wanted to do that thing. My question for you, peacegirl, is where does the desire to do some particular thing come from? What is the source, or origin, of the desire that results in any particular act?

The desire comes from one's heredity and environment, but when you say these things cause, as in the standard definition, we get in trouble. This does not mean that man's will is not free, but the way it is defined causes serious confusion. This has been the longest running debate in philosophy. Lessans cleared it up by reconciling these two ideologies and showing that moral responsibility and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is all you are saying, then you do not appear to be saying anything useful. The truth value of a claim is not conditional upon the desirability of the consequences attendant upon the truth of said claim. The mere fact that a particular understanding of determinism may be used (validly or invalidly) to excuse undesirable behavior has no bearing on the truth value of that particular understanding of determinism.

No, the only truth value comes from the truth, and the truth is that we only have the present, so how can the past "cause" the present. This has become a serious problem due to inaccurate reasoning. If you don't get this, you will not get why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate and turns this debate on its head. Who would want to use a definition that is inaccurate, and continue to say that it's useful?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As such, we can say that our decisions in the present are caused by the past. So why say "how can the past cause you to do something in the present as it does not exist?" I vaguely remember similar statements in the book.

I don't think it was either new or critical, but I would have to look up the "new" part.

Far from it: you do it all the time. I have pointed a lot of them out. It is where you simply claim something and leave it at that. Much like your father simply claims conscience works the way he says, and then moves on as if he has proven it beyond a doubt.

That is not true. If you can't understand his reasoning based on his observations, you will say that his observations about conscience are not proved, just like Spacemonkey does. But these observations about conscience are spot on. If you understand how conscience functions (because that's the very purpose of why there is a conscience), you will then understand why people can do things that they could never do in an environment where there is no blame, punishment, or judgment.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another thing you do is this strange attempt at trying to coax agreement out of people by promising them further insight. Right now you say "If you cant even agree with this, there is no hope of you understanding the discovery."

I said if your position refuses to agree with the two principles that are required for further understanding, then there is a problem. I am not coaxing anyone. I am only saying that until you see the validity of the principles that lead to the discovery, there is no hope in your understanding these principles. As it now stands, there is no hope because you are convinced he is wrong, which is why you are fighting it with everything you've got.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not true. If I reject the basic principles of an idea, then there is no hope of me agreeing with it. I can understand an idea without agreeing with it.

That's true. But what does this actually mean? You understand the idea, but you don't agree with it because you don't understand the clear explanation as to why man's will is not free, so you go on and on about how wrong he is. Do you think your opinion proves that determinism is not valid? NO IT DOES NOT.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To you, full agreement is a prerequisite for understanding.

If you understand something and are in full agreement, then doesn't it follow that you will agree? If you disagree, you are claiming that your disagreement proves that he's wrong. It does not. You are not making sense Vivisectus, and I suspect this is because your goal is to prove Lessans wrong even if you're completely and utterly confused.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is irrational, and I would argue against using that tactic as it is standard MO for woo-merchants and people with crackpot ideas, along with blaming all criticism on bias and closed-mindedness.

All you're doing is spouting off hot air. I have no desire to respond.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, calling this work a "discovery" is boastful: we are looking at it to see if it is or not. So far the consensus is that it is nothing of the sort, with a minority of 1 stating differently.

Huh? What does consensus have to do with the truth. Are you now telling me that the majority always wins? Go back through history to see if consensus means that a discovery is necessarily wrong. You are backfiring on yourself.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Remind me: why have you not submitted the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum?

No one in here would give this discovery a fair analysis. I wouldn't even attempt it. I want to find philosophers that are objective and can study the book carefully without taking parts out of context. You cannot be objective at this point, there's no way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I mean, of course, the philosophy forum that has a panel of 20 philosophers with the explicit purpose of answering people's questions regarding philosophy. Nothing to do with anyone in here. They are impartial (they have never heard of the book) and they are experts in the relevant field. A golden opportunity to get this book to the attention of "leading scientists of the time". Simply send them chapter 1 and 2 so they can evaluate what the rest of the book is based on, and let you know what their professional opinion is. I do not think you ever will, and that you will continue to make feeble excuses about why you will not. The real reason is simply because you are afraid of impartial evaluation: all you want is confirmation.

I welcome impartial confirmation. You are not impartial, and neither is anyone in here. Face the truth. This is group mentality and you can't get past it. That's the problem with these forums which would never allow people to actually hear what this author has to say. Your claiming of bias, by the way, is nonsensical as usual. If the book makes sense, then how people feel about it should be irrelevant. The objections that are mere expressions of bias should not be rational, and therefore easy to refute.

That's exactly what I'm doing; rejecting the emotional and knee jerk reactions of people who are biased. There's no doubt about it, even if they are biased because I am Lessans' daughter. It's really a hard mountain to climb, but I am climbing it step by step.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at your responses: they are often irrational and based purely on emotion, and they have been pretty comprehensively refuted. It is just that you simply refuse to see it and keep muddling on, using evasion, waffling, appeals to emotion, claims of persecution, outright denial of the obvious, and on occasion even complete gobbledygook to allow yourself to live in denial. Look at some of the contradictory and completely nonsensical things you have said about light!

Do you see what you're doing? If you don't, I am definitely in the wrong place if you are one of the main participants running the show.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This video did not lie. The timeline of when these drugs were manufactured did not lie. The showing of the history of how these psychotropic drugs came onto the scene of Western civilization did not lie.

Of course.

In addition, the e-meter measures whether and to what extent a person has spiritual impediments from past experiences.

Also, Xenu, Dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of people to Earth (f/k/a Teegeeack) in a DC-8 shaped spaceship seventy five million years ago only to stack them around volcanoes and off them with H-bombs. True story.

So then, you're a big fat liar and a credulous dumbass. That's quite the combo. Although the fact that you're a fan of Scientology comes as no great surprise given your established affinity for fraud.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is turning out to be the liar?

You're an admitted liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would never tell you who I talked to.

Thank you. Anything you'd say in that regard would be a big fat lie, and this place is already neck deep in your big fat lies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course.

In addition, the e-meter measures whether and to what extent a person has spiritual impediments from past experiences.

Also, Xenu, Dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, brought billions of people to Earth (f/k/a Teegeeack) in a DC-8 shaped spaceship seventy five million years ago only to stack them around volcanoes and off them with H-bombs. True story.

So then, you're a big fat liar and a credulous dumbass. That's quite the combo. Although the fact that you're a fan of Scientology comes as no great surprise given your established affinity for fraud.

You're an admitted liar.

Thank you. Anything you'd say in that regard would be a big fat lie, and this place is already neck deep in your big fat lies.

This is such a joke. How can I be a proponent of scientology when in the book that Lessans wrote discredits Dianetics? Now eat dirt.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is such a joke.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can I be a proponent of scientology when in the book that Lessans wrote discredits Dianetics?

Tacitly admitting that you're completely incapable of deviating from your father's thinking in any way is a big step in the right direction. Perhaps you should follow up by leaving the alcohol alone and getting a job.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now eat dirt.

[davidm]

Scientology minister accused of molesting Thetans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Indeed.

Tacitly admitting that you're completely incapable of deviating from your father's thinking in any way is a big step in the right direction. Perhaps you should follow up by leaving the alcohol alone and getting a job.

You still win for being the most caustic son of a bitch I've ever met. You hide behind your anonymity. What's your real name? Do you think you would ever divulge this information? Of course you wouldn't. You are a coward, and it's very easy to say things that you would never say in person. Everyone knows that people can be vicious when no one knows who they are.

[Stephen Maturin]

So that's a no on leaving the alcohol alone and getting a job?

[davidm]

Ask Arthur Schopenhauer

Questions about life, love, intimacy and the best damned spaghetti and meatballs ever in the New Age of Seymour Lessans? Ask the great German pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who didn’t say, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident,” no matter how many times he is falsely quoted on the Intertubes!

Dear Arthur: I want to have rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table with my wife, but two problems arise. First, whenever I am “in the mood,” children are around, and Seymour Lessans wrote that rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table is perfectly fine provided no little ones are present. However, it seems to me that banishing a child from viewing a dinner-time rumpy-pumpy session is equivalent to blaming it for its natural curiosity about sex, and Lessans also wrote that to wake a child is to blame it for sleeping. How does one resolve this apparent contradiction in his infallible reasoning? The second problem is that although I am constantly wearing my translucent sex robe which prominently displays the genitals that my wife fell in love with, it never seems to “turn her on,” if you catch my drift. In fact, just recently she exclaimed at me: “Put on some goddamn pants, for fuck’s sake, you blathering lunatic, and act like a decent human for once!” What do you think she meant by that statement? If I didn’t know better, it almost sounds as if she were upset with me, and blaming me for my natural desires, which is impossible in the New World. How do you think I should decode her statement? Roanoke Rumpy-Pumpy Lover

Dear RRPL: Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. But if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? What would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.

Dear Arthur: I am a former NASA scientist who recently had my life turned around by Lessanology. I was deeply involved in calculating trajectories for spacecraft sent to Mars and other worlds, and one day I sat my colleagues down and bluntly told them “U R doing it wrong!” They calculate trajectories to Mars and other planets by taking into effect delayed-time seeing, but Lessans proved that we see everything in real time. Therefore, I explained, we should stop calculating trajectories according to delayed-time seeing, which must be false because Lessans said it was. Honestly, they looked at me just as if I were some kind of lunatic or something, and then shortly afterward I was fired! What do you make of all this, and what should I do about it? (I am seriously contemplating returning to the agency with an Uzi submachine gun and mowing them all down in retaliation for striking the first blow.) Clueless in Cruces

Dear CIC: Every man desires to reach old age; in other words, a state of life of which it may be said: “It is bad to-day, and it will be worse to-morrow; and so on till the worst of all.”

If you try to imagine, as nearly as you can, what an amount of misery, pain and suffering of every kind the sun shines upon in its course, you will admit that it would be much better if, on the earth as little as on the moon, the sun were able to call forth the phenomena of life; and if, here as there, the surface were still in a crystalline state.

Dear Arthur: Stephen Maturin still wins for being the most caustic son of a bitch that peacegirl has ever met. He hides behind his anonymity. Do you know Maturin’s real name? Danged if I do and Danged if I don’t in Denver

Dear DIIDADIIDID: Alois Schickelgruber

Questions about life, love, intimacy and the best damned spaghetti and meatballs ever in the New Age of Seymour Lessans? Ask Arthur Schopenhauer!

[Stephen Maturin]

[Vivisectus]

Far from it: you do it all the time. I have pointed a lot of them out. It is where you simply claim something and leave it at that. Much like your father simply claims conscience works the way he says, and then moves on as if he has proven it beyond a doubt.

That is not true.

Technically, you just did it again. You never cease to amuse.

If you can't understand his reasoning based on his observations, you will say that his observations about conscience are not proved, just like Spacemonkey does.

You claim to understand them: why can you not provide the proof either? The truth is that there is none. If I am wrong, provide it. If I am right, admit it. Either that or you are dishonest.

But these observations about conscience are spot on

.

I believe I numbered this as 1: It is correct because it is.

If you understand how conscience functions (because that's the very purpose of why there is a conscience),

Once again you sink into gobbledygook. That is not even english.

you will then understand why people can do things that they could never do in an environment where there is no blame, punishment, or judgment.

Brilliant: if I agreed, then I would agree!

I said if your position refuses to agree with the two principles that are required for further understanding, then there is a problem.

There: you just did it again.

I am not coaxing anyone.

..and then deny it again...

I am only saying that until you see the validity of the principles that lead to the discovery, there is no hope in your understanding these principles.

And then you do it a second time... all this is as many sentences!

As it now stands, there is no hope because you are convinced he is wrong, which is why you are fighting it with everything you've got.

If my reasoning was based on emotion or bias, it should be very easy to refute. Look at how easy it is for me to pick apart the nonsense you just tried to pass of as debate. It is irrational, so it does not take much to show that that it all it is.

That's true.

I know. It is why you should stop saying things like that.

But what does this actually mean? You understand the idea, but you don't agree with it because you don't understand the clear explanation as to why man's will is not free,

SO I understand and not understand at the same time? Amazing.

so you go on and on about how wrong he is. Do you think your opinion proves that determinism is not valid? NO IT DOES NOT

.

We are not talking about determinism, and if anything, you are the one arguing against it when you say that past events cannot cause us to make decisions in the present because it does not exist anymore. Which you recently seem to have both retracted and repeated without noticing... again.

If you understand something and are in full agreement, then doesn't it follow that you will agree?

Wow. Do you even read what you write?

If you disagree, you are claiming that your disagreement proves that he's wrong.

No, if you do it properly, you support your opinion by showing why you feel it is incorrect. You seem to really be going off the deep end PG, you are even less coherent than usual, which is saying something in your case. Are you drunk or on medication?

It does not.

No, what I bring up to support it does.

You are not making sense Vivisectus, and I suspect this is because your goal is to prove Lessans wrong even if you're completely and utterly confused.

That is one of the things I love about you: I never have to wait long before you accuse me of what you are guilty of yourself, in an overwhelmingly obvious way. You never disappoint.

All you're doing is spouting off hot air. I have no desire to respond.

Hey, take the advise or not. In the long run it is probably more entertaining for me if you do not.

Huh? What does consensus have to do with the truth. Are you now telling me that the majority always wins? Go back through history to see if consensus means that a discovery is necessarily wrong. You are backfiring on yourself.

Those discoveries were verified, and when they were they were called discoveries. If you call it a discovery when we have yet to see if it is, you are being boastful. So far, every last person except 1 thinks it is wingnuttery of the highest order.

I welcome impartial confirmation.

Wow. That is such an enormous lie I am surprised there was not a small thunderclap when it appeared on the screen, or something.

You are not impartial, and neither is anyone in here. Face the truth. This is group mentality and you can't get past it.

No, that is what you tell yourself so you can pretend the book is anything but ignorant buffoonery.

That's the problem with these forums which would never allow people to actually hear what this author has to say.

These days, when presented with an amazing discovery, I warn people that I hate amazing discoveries so much that when faced with them, I use my awesome internet-powers to somehow make the person presenting the discovery utterly incapable of to presenting a coherent and compelling explanation of the discovery. I don't know how I do it, but it seems to happen every time. Amazing!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your claiming of bias, by the way, is nonsensical as usual. If the book makes sense, then how people feel about it should be irrelevant. The objections that are mere expressions of bias should not be rational, and therefore easy to refute.

That's exactly what I'm doing; rejecting the emotional and knee jerk reactions of people who are biased.

Then you are not doing exactly what I said, as you are merely rejecting, not refuting. As such, I agree: you reject, out of hand and without supporting your opinion, any disagreement. You simply call them knee-jerk and emotional to justify doing this without any rational reason.

There's no doubt about it, even if they are biased because I am Lessans' daughter

.

That is a very funny thing you just said. Everyone else is biased, because you are Lessans daughter?

It's really a hard mountain to climb, but I am climbing it step by step.

Ermmm... no, you are just stuck here, going round and round, because this is the only place where you can get attention. If you were trying to climb mountains you would actually be doing something to get this out. But you are not.

Do you see what you're doing? If you don't, I am definitely in the wrong place if you are one of the main participants running the show.

I realize that in order for you to retain your delusion you need to attribute all this influence to me, but I can assure you very few people here give a rats arse what I think. The problem is that it is simply true, as you well know. But that would mean you have to admit that you are just a silly person with nothing better to do.

[Vivisectus]

No, the only truth value comes from the truth, and the truth is that we only have the present, so how can the past "cause" the present. This has become a serious problem due to inaccurate reasoning. If you don't get this, you will not get why his definition of "greater satisfaction" is more accurate and turns this debate on its head. Who would want to use a definition that is inaccurate, and continue to say that it's useful?

You did it again! You only just conceded that a past event does not need to exist to be a cause, and now you flipflopped right back! Are you on medication, or some drug? It is like every few days, something presses a big "reset to factory default settings" button in your head, and you go back to spouting the same old nonsense, even if you have been discussing it for days!

You really never cease to amaze me... every time I think you could not possibly make a bigger fool of yourself you prove me wrong and find a new and hitherto unsuspected stratum of purest, unadulterated dumbassery. How can you say that when you admitted it was not the case only a few posts ago?

Oh I know - it is in the book, isn't it? Let me dig up my copy to check.

[Vivisectus]

Meantime, deadly silence about sending it in to a panel of 20 professional philosophers... the scientists are there, actually ASKING to evaluate the "Greatest Discovery of Our Time"... but no! The only reason this work is not universally hailed as the best thing since sliced bread is because the academic world is shutting it out.

Tell me - would that not make you a bit of a fraud?

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1088666]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Indeed.

Tacitly admitting that you're completely incapable of deviating from your father's thinking in any way is a big step in the right direction. Perhaps you should follow up by leaving the alcohol alone and getting a job.

You still win for being the most caustic son of a bitch I've ever met. You hide behind your anonymity. What's your real name? Do you think you would ever divulge this information? Of course you wouldn't. You are a coward, and it's very easy to say things that you would never say in person. Everyone knows that people can be vicious when no one knows who they are.[/QUOTE]

WOW! what did I say up thread? about 100 pages back, the closer one gets to the truth the more hostile and vicious she gets.

Oh, and I believe Stephen just beat Davidm out for being the most something-or-other?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We are not talking about determinism, and if anything, you are the one arguing against it when you say that past events cannot cause us to make decisions in the present because it does not exist anymore. Which you recently seem to have both retracted and repeated without noticing... again.

The fact that you say that I'm arguing against determinism is so completely off-base that it just makes me resigned to the fact that there's no point for us to communicate. All you're trying to do is find ways to make it appear that I don't know what I'm saying. I hope people can see through you.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, calling this work a "discovery" is boastful: we are looking at it to see if it is or not. So far the consensus is that it is nothing of the sort, with a minority of 1 stating differently.

It is not boastful, and one day, if we're all still here, you'll see that it's not.

Huh? What does consensus have to do with the truth. Are you now telling me that the majority always wins? Go back through history to see if consensus means that a discovery is necessarily wrong. You are backfiring on yourself.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Those discoveries were verified, and when they were they were called discoveries. If you call it a discovery when we have yet to see if it is, you are being boastful. So far, every last person except 1 thinks it is wingnuttery of the highest order.

Please remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development.

That's the problem with these forums which would never allow people to actually hear what this author has to say.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

These days, when presented with an amazing discovery, I warn people that I hate amazing discoveries so much that when faced with them, I use my awesome internet-powers to somehow make the person presenting the discovery utterly incapable of to presenting a coherent and compelling explanation of the discovery. I don't know how I do it, but it seems to happen every time. Amazing!

I did the best I could in a very difficult venue. I think I should be applauded for sticking it out this long.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your claiming of bias, by the way, is nonsensical as usual. If the book makes sense, then how people feel about it should be irrelevant. The objections that are mere expressions of bias should not be rational, and therefore easy to refute.

Bias comes in many forms.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Look at your responses: they are often irrational and based purely on emotion, and they have been pretty comprehensively refuted. It is just that you simply refuse to see it and keep muddling on, using evasion, waffling, appeals to emotion, claims of persecution, outright denial of the obvious, and on occasion even complete gobbledygook to allow yourself to live in denial. Look at some of the contradictory and completely nonsensical things you have said about light!

No, it's not nonsensical. But taking his claim seriously might take another 100 years. Nothing I can do about that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I realize that in order for you to retain your delusion you need to attribute all this influence to me, but I can assure you very few people here give a rats arse what I think. The problem is that it is simply true, as you well know. But that would mean you have to admit that you are just a silly person with nothing better to do.

I haven't gotten my books yet, so yes I have nothing better to do when it comes to the book. But not for long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You did it again! You only just conceded that a past event does not need to exist to be a cause, and now you flipflopped right back! Are you on medication, or some drug? It is like every few days, something presses a big "reset to factory default settings" button in your head, and you go back to spouting the same old nonsense, even if you have been discussing it for days!

You are so dense I have to repeat this for the 100th time. For some reason it just won't penetrate. The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present, but that does not mean that our memories of what happened a moment ago, ten minutes ago, a month ago, a year ago, ad infinitum, doesn't influence our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction each and every moment of time. You are the one that looks like a fool.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Meantime, deadly silence about sending it in to a panel of 20 professional philosophers... the scientists are there, actually ASKING to evaluate the "Greatest Discovery of Our Time"... but no! The only reason this work is not universally hailed as the best thing since sliced bread is because the academic world is shutting it out.

Tell me - would that not make you a bit of a fraud?

Just because there are a group of philosophers answering questions does not mean they would be interested in this topic. A lot of them are specializing in other topics in philosophy, which has to be taken into consideration. To find philosophers who would take time out of their schedule to investigate this work is not as easy as you think. I'm confident that there will be interest in this book once I start promoting it!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because there are a group of philosophers answering questions does not mean they would be interested in this topic. A lot of them are specializing in other topics in philosophy, which has to be taken into consideration. To find philosophers who would take time out of their schedule to investigate this work is not as easy as you think. I'm confident that there will be interest in this book once I start promoting it!

Except that the broad sweeping claims of peace without war, no crime, or hurt of any kind, would be of interest to almost any philosopher, as it crosses most areas of interest

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm confident that there will be interest in this book once I start promoting it!

Why haven't you started? You've already had nearly a decade in which to do so. I guess discrediting both your father and yourself all over the internet was a far more important priority for you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I will take you up on that request. If no one comes forward to say they are interested and want me to be here, I will leave.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey has beaten into my head that there is no one here who gives a dam. So if no one speaks up on my behalf, I will interpret that as a "no" and choose to leave in the direction of greater satisfaction. I am sure this will make Spacemonkey very happy.

So, just to be clear, the above claims were nothing but histrionic rhetoric, were they? As opposed to you actually saying something that you meant.