A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you don't get to call him names and then put the blame on me for your blunder. You didn't read the chapter which would have made you understand what he meant and why he said what he said. I knew you would never admit you're wrong and apologize. You're too proud.

Why should she apologize? She did read the chapter, and you are refusing to provide any context or explanation which would show her understanding to be incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are lurkers out there who may be unsure about this discovery and want to understand more about it.

No, there aren't. These imaginary undecided lurkers are a figment of your imagination, much like the 'proofs' you think are to be found in Lessans' work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that this knowledge is falsifiable, even if it was necessary to create a small society based on these principles. But that's not necessary once people see that these principles are undeniable. Lessans proves in an undeniable fashion that man can't hurt another under the changed conditions. That in itself proves man's will is not free because it's impossible for him to desire striking a first blow when not to becomes the preferable choice. You don't get it at all LadyShea, and it's frustrating me to no end for you to constantly say "Prove it!" Trust me, the proof is there. If you cannot understand the proof (which lays the foundation for the two-sided equation), you are going to have to trust that it's there, and allow me to move on.

That cannot be correct. Falsifiable claims can only be established with empirical evidence, of which Lessans presented none whatsoever. Anything supported only with apriori reasoning will not be falsifiable at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anything you don't like you call weaseling, which is weaseling. So you are a bigger weasel than I am, which isn't surprising because it takes one to know one.

Apparently you don't know (or care) what 'weaseling' means. Weaseling is the intellectually dishonest avoidance of legitimate direct questions. You do this all the time, but no-one else here does. When you ask us direct questions they get answered. But when we ask you, we get only evasions and excuses. You are weaseling every time you ignore a question, or reply to it by changing the topic, making an excuse, or otherwise respond in a way that does not answer or address what was asked. No-one here does this but you. And you do it constantly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does anyone have compassion for what I'm faced with?

Yes, very much so. But unfortunately you refuse to seek help, and your family refuse to intervene, so I don't see what more can be done.

[LadyShea]

Bumping to ensure any lurkers see this on the latest page

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just for you, peacegirl

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bumping to ensure any lurkers see this on the latest page

I really don't think that was necessary, as no-one else here has anything to hide, other than Peacegirl, and she is hiding the truth about the book.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I really don't think that was necessary, as no-one else here has anything to hide, other than Peacegirl, and she is hiding the truth about the book.

It shouldn't be necessary, but it gives Peacegirl one less excuse.

[LadyShea]

I did it so if lurkers didn't care to participate in a discussion, or be directly addressed or engaged, they could still register their opinion.

Even with this safety net of privacy, peacegirl tried to use my massive intimidatingness and domineeringness to explain why people might not want to vote.

[But]

The old man completely fucked it up for her. All of this more or less follows if the stuff in the book is the basis of everything for you. She's just trying to make sense out of this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

The old man completely fucked it up for her. All of this more or less follows if the stuff in the book is the basis of everything for you. She's just trying to make sense out of this.

If she were really trying to make sense of this, there might be some hope, but she has completely shut herself off from reality and is seeing everything through the book, as if the book were the sum total of truth about the world. She is really only trying to rationalize the book with her twisted and distorted view of the world.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime you communicate you have to have a common definition, or you won't be able to understand what the person is saying. If my definition of a dog is a cat, then my definition will confuse you if you understand a dog to be something else. Definitions can only be useful if it's common to both parties.

More blatant hypocrisy on your part, considering how you -- like your father before you -- constantly redefine words, and use non-standard definitions. And worse, you often refuse to specify what non-standard or made-up definition you're using, even when pointedly asked to do so.

And then you hypocritically complain that you're being "misunderstood." As if it's everyone else's problem that you're using words in non-standard and made-up ways, while refusing to define your terms.

Every time I think that we've plumbed the depths of your hypocrisy, you wind up demonstrating that you can go even further.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should she apologize? She did read the chapter, and you are refusing to provide any context or explanation which would show her understanding to be incorrect.

She did not read this chapter Spacemonkey or she would never have pulled this sentence out of context the way she did. She still doesn't understand what he meant by this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are lurkers out there who may be unsure about this discovery and want to understand more about it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, there aren't. These imaginary undecided lurkers are a figment of your imagination, much like the 'proofs' you think are to be found in Lessans' work.

Now you're boring me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that this knowledge is falsifiable, even if it was necessary to create a small society based on these principles. But that's not necessary once people see that these principles are undeniable. Lessans proves in an undeniable fashion that man can't hurt another under the changed conditions. That in itself proves man's will is not free because it's impossible for him to desire striking a first blow when not to becomes the preferable choice. You don't get it at all LadyShea, and it's frustrating me to no end for you to constantly say "Prove it!" Trust me, the proof is there. If you cannot understand the proof (which lays the foundation for the two-sided equation), you are going to have to trust that it's there, and allow me to move on.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That cannot be correct. Falsifiable claims can only be established with empirical evidence, of which Lessans presented none whatsoever. Anything supported only with apriori reasoning will not be falsifiable at all.

This knowledge can be falsified.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anything you don't like you call weaseling, which is weaseling. So you are a bigger weasel than I am, which isn't surprising because it takes one to know one.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently you don't know (or care) what 'weaseling' means. Weaseling is the intellectually dishonest avoidance of legitimate direct questions. You do this all the time, but no-one else here does. When you ask us direct questions they get answered. But when we ask you, we get only evasions and excuses. You are weaseling every time you ignore a question, or reply to it by changing the topic, making an excuse, or otherwise respond in a way that does not answer or address what was asked. No-one here does this but you. And you do it constantly.

I answer as many questions as I can, in as a direct manner as I can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does anyone have compassion for what I'm faced with?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, very much so. But unfortunately you refuse to seek help, and your family refuse to intervene, so I don't see what more can be done.

You've turned out to be anything but a careful investigator.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

More blatant hypocrisy on your part, considering how you -- like your father before you -- constantly redefine words, and use non-standard definitions. And worse, you often refuse to specify what non-standard or made-up definition you're using, even when pointedly asked to do so.

And then you hypocritically complain that you're being "misunderstood." As if it's everyone else's problem that you're using words in non-standard and made-up ways, while refusing to define your terms.

Every time I think that we've plumbed the depths of your hypocrisy, you wind up demonstrating that you can go even further.

Lessans stated in the introduction that the words "undeniable" "mathematical" and "scientific" are synonymous. What other words are you talking about? He made one clarification when it comes to determinism, but it didn't change the definition. What other words have confused people?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She did not read this chapter Spacemonkey or she would never have pulled this sentence out of context the way she did. She still doesn't understand what he meant by this.

She did read the chapter, and you haven't shown that it was taken out of context.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge can be falsified.

If it is falsifiable, then without evidence it cannot have been established as true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answer as many questions as I can, in as a direct manner as I can.

No, you do not. You weasel and avoid as many questions as you can.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've turned out to be anything but a careful investigator.

You've turned out to be a dishonest lying weasel. Why haven't you replied to the posts you asked me to bump for you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I quoted Lessans and asked you to provide the context you claim I took the passage out of, and/or explain the excerpt in a way that makes his very clear words mean something not disgusting and dehumanizing. You refused.

How is it playing dirty to quote Lessans and offer my opinions on it? Did Lessans say that? Yes he did.

Since you read the chapter LadyShea, you should understand what this excerpt was about, so play it back to me. You can't do it because have no idea. And you think this is careful investigation? You are out to make fun of an important chapter. It makes me sick.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans stated in the introduction that the words "undeniable" "mathematical" and "scientific" are synonymous. What other words are you talking about?

These words are not synonymous, however. In fact, as you and Lessans use the words, "mathematical" and "scientific" mean almost exactly the opposite of their actual meanings. It's more than a little dishonest to redefine words to mean almost the exact opposite of their true meanings, and pretend that this is somehow reasonable and above-board.

In short, Lessans and you want to pretend that his work is undeniable, mathematical, and scientific -- not by putting together something that's actually undeniable, mathematical, or scientific, but by simply redefining terms and hoping that nobody notices the bait-and-switch.

It's dishonest.



In any event, have you not been paying attention all this time?

People have been complaining since Page One about how you -- and your father -- use non-standard and made-up definitions, and how you frequently refuse to define your terms, even when pointedly asked to do so.

It's a very long list of terms by now.

[LadyShea]

She did not read this chapter Spacemonkey or she would never have pulled this sentence out of context the way she did. She still doesn't understand what he meant by this.

Once again, there is no context in the chapter that can change the meaning of the sentence. If there was such easily found context that made the sentence not mean what it clearly said, then you would have offered it by now. We have discussed this excerpt many times and every time you claim there is missing context and yet failed to provide it.

How does "....he will fall in love with her sexual organs" mean anything other than exactly what it says?

Here is the context. I have identified the parts that make me want to hurl, and /or that indicate Lessans obsession with sex and equation of sex with love, in red letters.

Originally Posted by Lessans

One face is not better looking than another — just different —
although we will always find certain differences we like better. It is true that we have already been conditioned to move in the direction
of certain preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at the very outset and when other choices in a mate will never
be directly or indirectly criticized. If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put
the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual
organs...and her features will become secondary because nobody will ever refer indirectly to her as ugly by calling other types beautiful,
which in our present world could possibly make him regret his choice and keep an eye out for someone who would be looked upon by others
as having more to offer in the way of physical appearance. But how is it possible for him to regret his choice for a mate when the world
stops criticizing that choice and when he falls desperately in love with his beloved which takes place after, not before, the sexual union?

A boy will have no choice in the matter of marriage as it will be his only source of sexual satisfaction, which I shall sum up by using mathematical phraseology.

Since the single males who are not in love with the single girls who love them are prevented from indulging because they consider
this decision better for themselves and are therefore prevented from participating; and since a single female who is not in love with the boy
who loves her is prevented from indulging because it is impossible for the girl to go out on a date and make love with someone she does not
like, love, or desire, it is therefore obvious that the only way these single people can get together sexually once they understand what it
means that man’s will is not free is to fall mutually in love.

It should be obvious that once these young couples lose the desire for another sexual partner, within a relatively short
period of time only these marriages will exist, and when a boy can get no sexual outlet except through marriage he will fall in love, and so will she, with the first person that offers any physical attraction. This selection process, however, will take on new significance as the
standards of value, now fallaciously congealed in opinions and words that affect choice, lose their influence while being replaced with
personal feelings that are not affected by the judgment of others. The basis of a sound marriage in the new world will be this physical
attraction and satisfaction both experience in the presence of each other, nothing else, not money, education (which is another farce that came into existence out of necessity and will surprise everybody, especially those who consider themselves educated), social position, religion, race, or anything else — only physical attraction — and from this foundation will come the greatest happiness imaginable.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since you read the chapter LadyShea, you should understand what this excerpt was about, so play it back to me. You can't do it because have no idea. And you think this is careful investigation? You are out to make fun of an important chapter. It makes me sick.

Why do you keep begging others to explain what you cannot and will not explain yourself?

Why are you not replying to the posts which you asked me to bump for you?

[LadyShea]

Since you read the chapter LadyShea, you should understand what this excerpt was about, so play it back to me. You can't do it because have no idea. And you think this is careful investigation? You are out to make fun of an important chapter. It makes me sick.

In my reading, the excerpt appears to be about Lessans obsession with sex and total dismissal of everything else about the people involved when it came to relationships. I quoted an even larger portion above. Where is this context?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She did read the chapter, and you haven't shown that it was taken out of context.

If it is falsifiable, then without evidence it cannot have been established as true.

This discovery will be tested eventually, and you will see that he was right all along. That's all I want to say on this subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answer as many questions as I can, in as a direct manner as I can.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you do not. You weasel and avoid as many questions as you can.

You're making it very hard for me to even want to engage you, so you better cut out the put downs while you're ahead if you want to continue the conversation. I've said this before and I mean it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've turned out to be anything but a careful investigator.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've turned out to be a dishonest lying weasel. Why haven't you replied to the posts you asked me to bump for you?

I haven't gotten to them yet, that's why. I would be much more inclined to find the posts if you stopped accusing me of something I haven't done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In my reading, the excerpt appears to be about Lessans obsession with sex and total dismissal of everything else about a person when it came to relationships. I quoted an even larger portion above. Where is this context?

Not only are you completely wrong, your basis for making these judgments are coming from your own personal experiences. I'll say it again; you don't understand the first thing about this chapter or what he was trying to explain. It is not an obsession with sex to say that sex is central in romantic relationships. Haven't you ever heard someone say: "I love you as a person, but I'm no longer in love with you." What do you think that means. It means I am not sexually attracted to you anymore. He didn't say anything that isn't already known. Maybe you're on another planet than I am, but sex is an important issue. You're acting like some kind of puritan.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep begging others to explain what you cannot and will not explain yourself?

Why are you not replying to the posts which you asked me to bump for you?

I refuse to get into this chapter until his first discovery is understood. If people can't understand his reasoning which is based on astute observations, I have no desire to go any further, especially when I'm still being called all kinds of names that don't apply to me. I am not a hypocrite, a liar, or a weasel.

[LadyShea]

LOL, sex is far from the only issue in a relationship, peacegirl. Sex is important, but sexuality is only one aspect about a person. Reducing individual human beings to their sexual organs, and diminishing rich and robust relationships to merely satisfactory fucking, is disgusting and dysfunctional.

Maybe if you understood what a healthy relationship is you wouldn't be divorced.

Lessans was very clear what he meant when he said: The basis of a sound marriage in the new world will be this physical attraction[/B] and satisfaction both experience in the presence of each other, nothing else, not money, education (which is another farce that came into existence out of necessity and will surprise everybody, especially those who consider themselves educated), social position, religion, race, or anything else — only physical attraction

[peacegirl]

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support!

[The Lone Ranger]

And where would that be? So far, the poll shows exactly zero votes in favor of you having made a favorable impression.

Or is this yet another example of your tendency to assume that things you wish were true are true?

[LadyShea]

The difference lies in the fact that the definition of love has been
completely forgotten. These differences — teeth, noses, shape in
general — are secondary, not primary factors. Remember, the word
love symbolizes a conscious or unconscious desire, in varying degrees,
for a sexual relation of some kind and this is easily proven by the fact
that it is impossible for a boy or girl to fall in love with or be
physically attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing
this individual might be considered if they know in advance that this
person was born without sexual organs which knowledge makes them
aware that he or she is incapable of giving or receiving sexual
satisfaction. This explains why a sexually satisfied girl does not care
what her man looks like except when she, who is so pretty, is judged
for going out with or marrying such a homely person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, sex is far from the only issue in a relationship, peacegirl. Sex is important, but sexuality is only one aspect about a person.

In young love, sex is a major and central aspect of the relationship. Like Dr. Phil says, if sex is good it's 10% of the relationship. If it's bad, it becomes 90%.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Reducing individual human beings to their sexual organs, and diminishing rich and robust relationships to merely satisfactory fucking, is disgusting and dysfunctional.

No it is not dysfunctional. Your attitude is dysfunctional because sex is very important. Of course you can love someone more than just sex, but in the beginning most people want good sex, and it is one of the major causes for adultery or divorce, next to finances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe if you understood what a healthy relationship is you wouldn't be divorced.

So now you want to bring my personal life into the discussion? No surprise. Actually, we wouldn't be divorced if he had understood the principles.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was very clear what he meant when he said: The basis of a sound marriage in the new world will be this physical attraction[/B] and satisfaction both experience in the presence of each other, nothing else, not money, education (which is another farce that came into existence out of necessity and will surprise everybody, especially those who consider themselves educated), social position, religion, race, or anything else — only physical attraction

That is true, and as you read the book you would understand what he meant. You really have no understanding at all. We don't marry someone's brains without looking first and foremost for physical attraction. Everything else is secondary. Ask any man if they would marry a woman because she's smart but she isn't attractive in their eyes. I bet you they will say they would not, unless they're lying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support!

Did this person PM you? If so, why has/he or she not voted on the poll.

I'll bet I can guess who it is if it was via pm.