A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

I happened to come upon this video. This truly is the power of determination, not that every person will be healed because of will-power. That is not the case in all circumstances, but it does show how determination of the human spirit can affect the outcome of a situation whether it is a physical change or a psychological change, which is even more important than physical in my humble opinion.

Never, Ever Give Up. Arthur's Inspirational...

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misrepresenting this book. Apologize.

I've misrepresented nothing. You can't quote one passage to defend that there are contradictions. That one passage is merely one half of the contradiction. The contradiction occurs because of your one passage held up next to the others.

If I have to read the whole damn book to justify speaking about it, you have to listen to me tell you what I think of it. Your fathers book caused me physical pain last night. It is literally painful to read. I haven't heard you apologize to any of us that you have put us through that torture so you get no apology from me.

Originally Posted by koan

We don't need insurance, then we do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said we won't need insurance. Where does it say that?

He says it more than once, in a few ways.

Originally Posted by Book of Awesomeness

I realize how difficult it must be for you to conceive a world without liability insurance and the Department of Motor Vehicles, but you will learn soon enough that millions of people are going to be permanently displaced from their manner of earning a living but they will not be hurt in any way, so don’t jump to any conclusions; just be patient. p109

Soon to be displaced are judges, juries, lawyers, the entire penal system, crime investigators, intelligence agencies, liability insurance, every kind of license granting permission to do something, all printed forms to check on your honesty, credit cards (all but the IBM), travelers checks, money orders, the banks as a place to safeguard money, and all tax adjusters. p180

And since the guarantee renders obsolete the need to save for a rainy day since you will be given the money needed should any emergency force you to go below your standard of living (which has never been possible before), that much more money will go back into the taxpayer’s pocket because you can drop your insurance policies without hurting the insurance companies. p213

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are looking more and more ignorant. People can see through you koan because your motivation is to laugh at and condemn. Your mind is already made up that he has nothing of value so you are completely blocked. It is clear to me that you are a very unenlightened person.

Then don't make it so easy to laugh at you.

Who joins first? Who joins second? A lot of firsts happen. You want to debate over who was first, second etc? Just ask "do they drive a car?" Yes? They're in the first group.

Originally Posted by Book of Awesomeness

But this cannot be too much of a problem because motor vehicle operators will be among the first group to become citizens. p206

[thedoc]

quote=peacegirl;1102760]

Originally Posted by Book of Awesomeness

And since the guarantee renders obsolete the need to save for a rainy day since you will be given the money needed should any emergency force you to go below your standard of living (which has never been possible before), that much more money will go back into the taxpayer’s pocket because you can drop your insurance policies without hurting the insurance companies. p213

[/QUOTE]

Just where is this money comeing from, that is not specified in the book, it just states that everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. With all these people being put out of work, what are the new jobs they will get, that is not stated anywhere either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misrepresenting this book. Apologize.

Originally Posted by koan

I've misrepresented nothing.

Yes you have.

Originally Posted by koan

You can't quote one passage to defend that there are contradictions. That one passage is merely one half of the contradiction. The contradiction occurs because of your one passage held up next to the others.

Huh? Show me where there is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by koan

If I have to read the whole damn book to justify speaking about it, you have to listen to me tell you what I think of it.

I don't have to answer a person who is not here to learn. You are not asking pertinent questions; you are laughing at what you think are mistakes because you want to win. That's all this is about with you, winning. You don't even hear how you are coming off.

Originally Posted by koan

Your fathers book caused me physical pain last night. It is literally painful to read. I haven't heard you apologize to any of us that you have put us through that torture so you get no apology from me.

Well I compiled it and it hasn't caused me any pain. Why didn't you put the book down the minute you felt pain? No one is forcing you to read it. You are not the type that should be reading it. You are misrepresenting every word he's written. And please don't tell me you understand this knowledge because you don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by koan

We don't need insurance, then we do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said we won't need insurance. Where does it say that?

Originally Posted by koan

He says it more than once, in a few ways.

He did not say we won't need insurance. He said the guarantee will cover emergencies so this type of coverage won't be needed. He did not say all insurance is going to become obsolete. Again, you have no clue what you're reading. You must be skipping all over the place and that's what you call careful reading?

Originally Posted by Book of Awesomeness

I realize how difficult it must be for you to conceive a world without liability insurance and the Department of Motor Vehicles, but you will learn soon enough that millions of people are going to be permanently displaced from their manner of earning a living but they will not be hurt in any way, so don’t jump to any conclusions; just be patient. p109[/qote]

That is true. There will be no liability insurance. There will be no fault insurance.

Soon to be displaced are judges, juries, lawyers, the entire penal system, crime investigators, intelligence agencies, liability insurance, every kind of license granting permission to do something, all printed forms to check on your honesty, credit cards (all but the IBM), travelers checks, money orders, the banks as a place to safeguard money, and all tax adjusters. p180

And since the guarantee renders obsolete the need to save for a rainy day since you will be given the money needed should any emergency force you to go below your standard of living (which has never been possible before), that much more money will go back into the taxpayer’s pocket because you can drop your insurance policies without hurting the insurance companies. p213

Yes, this type of insurance can be dropped because the guarantee will cover it should an emergency occur and you are forced to go below your standard of living. What don't you understand? That is why you wouldn't have to include that in your standard of living expenses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are looking more and more ignorant. People can see through you koan because your motivation is to laugh at and condemn. Your mind is already made up that he has nothing of value so you are completely blocked. It is clear to me that you are a very unenlightened person.

Anyone can find something to laugh at if that is their goal. Your goal is not to understand the book which is why you never will.

Don't you hear yourself? You are not engaging with me. You are trying to discredit the book like so many other people have already done. You're just another one in line, but you won't be able to do it, because this book is credible.

You're making a big deal over nothing koan. The reason drivers will become the first citizens is because they will be able to drop their liability insurance. You are nitpicking because you want him to be wrong in the worst way, but he isn't wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

quote=peacegirl;1102760]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just where is this money comeing from, that is not specified in the book, it just states that everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. With all these people being put out of work, what are the new jobs they will get, that is not stated anywhere either.

It is stated explicitly in the book. So much money is going to freed up that it will not be difficult to get this guarantee to work across the globe. Please read the whole chapter otherwise you will not get a full picture of how this guarantee works. It is foolproof.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you hear yourself? You are not engaging with me. You are trying to discredit the book like so many other people have already done. You're just another one in line, but you won't be able to do it, because this book is credible.

You're right. Lots of people have already discredited this book... yet you still go on. The book may be incredible but certainly not credible in any normal use of the word.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making a big deal over nothing koan. The reason drivers will become the first citizens is because they will be able to drop their liability insurance. You are nitpicking because you want him to be wrong in the worst way, but he's not wrong.

It's you that is making a big deal about nothing: This book is nothing but a bunch of gibberish. This is his bloody "blueprint" for a new global society and he has multiple groups of "first" then leaves some of his firsts behind then puts them back in again. Also, your global IRS "guarantee" system that is supposed to make everyone happy actually guarantees that billionaires will stay billionaires while other people barely subsist. What he does is freeze the massive inequality that currently exists into a moment of time and insists that everyone will be happy. News flash for you: People aren't happy about the massive inequality that currently exists. They don't want it.

As far as "nitpicking" goes, this is nitpicking:

Didn't someone on another forum tell you to never use the "quote" button? You can't just insert comments in the middle of a quote without messing up who said what. You need to "/quote" before you write. For all your carrying on about mathematical thinking and how good you are at it, you can't even grasp the basic mathematics of using tags. For every start tag there must be a closing tag and within each tag set there should be only one operation(author) taking place. Don't even think about nesting quotes within quotes until you master the basics.

Originally Posted by you said

3

Wherein they happened in numerical order.
Stick to 1
Be wary of 2
Pass an examination before attempting 3

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It most certainly does.

No, it doesn't Peacegirl. Firstly, it is an imperative command rather than a proposition, so it isn't even the kind of thing that can be true or false, never mind something that can be proven true. So it isn't something proven true in the course of proving something else. And secondly, it isn't even a consequence, conclusion, or result. It is simply a prescriptive postulate you would have the whole world adopt because of the (alleged) favorable consequences of doing so once it is realized that the will is (allegedly) not free.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That they would gain

Incorrect. The best possible outcome for both prisoners collectively is for neither to confess, in which case they both serve one month in prison.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That only one would gain

Incorrect. The actual outcome when both prisoners act rationally is that both will confess, and both will therefore serve 3 months in prison.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The two are different because one wins if one defects, but together they both win to a much greater degree even though each one individually does not.

The two are different because the best collective outcome is only achievable if both parties know for sure that the other will co-operate. So long as this cannot be guaranteed, it is in the best interests of each individual to not co-operate and instead confess. For person A (and vice versa) so long as person B may or may not confess, it is best for person A to confess - no matter what person B does, in each case person A is better off to confess - despite the fact the best possible collective result requires neither to confess. This is why in these actual circumstances the best collective result will tend not to be achieved.

The general lesson to be learned, Peacegirl, is that for an action (or refraining from a particular action) to be in the best collective interest of a group of rational people is no guarantee at all that it will be selected, and where there is no guarantee of unanimous co-operation or enforcement it is almost certain not to be selected (so long as there is some motivation at the individual level to not co-operate).

If you still can't see the obvious relevance here for the no-blame postulate, then I will explain it for you. But first I need you to tell me if you now understand the dilemma, and if you dispute anything of what I have just explained.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you hear yourself? You are not engaging with me. You are trying to discredit the book like so many other people have already done. You're just another one in line, but you won't be able to do it, because this book is credible.

Originally Posted by koan

You're right. Lots of people have already discredited this book... yet you still go on. The book may be incredible but certainly not credible in any normal use of the word.

And who are these other people koan that you are referring to? Lots of people doesn't cut it. It's a cop out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making a big deal over nothing koan. The reason drivers will become the first citizens is because they will be able to drop their liability insurance. You are nitpicking because you want him to be wrong in the worst way, but he's not wrong.

Originally Posted by koan

It's you that is making a big deal about nothing: This book is nothing but a bunch of gibberish. This is his bloody "blueprint" for a new global society and he has multiple groups of "first" then leaves some of his firsts behind then puts them back in again.

He didn't have to say who would be the first citizens (it really doesn't matter because everyone will be taking the examination and becoming a citizen), but he did only because he believed motorists would be able to drop their liability insurance immediately. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the blueprint. It doesn't matter who is first and who is second, except for the leaders who would have to be the very first citizens because this would allow new citizens to be free from any further blame by their respective governments and will prevent any satisfaction to strike a first blow.

Originally Posted by koan

The other first would be the leaders of every nation Also, your global IRS "guarantee" system that is supposed to make everyone happy actually guarantees that billionaires will stay billionaires while other people barely subsist. What he does is freeze the massive inequality that currently exists into a moment of time and insists that everyone will be happy. News flash for you: People aren't happy about the massive inequality that currently exists. They don't want it.

But you are completely wrong. Everyone will have an opportunity to increase their standard of living. The standard of living that is guaranteed is the amount of money a person is making when the transition begins. If a person is on welfare, a basic standard will become his guarantee, but again this does not mean he can't increase his standard of living and that he is forever stuck in a lower income bracket. He could become a millionaire and may never need help from the guarantee again.

Originally Posted by koan

As far as "nitpicking" goes, this is nitpicking:

Didn't someone on another forum tell you to never use the "quote" button? You can't just insert comments in the middle of a quote without messing up who said what. You need to "/quote" before you write. For all your carrying on about mathematical thinking and how good you are at it, you can't even grasp the basic mathematics of using tags. For every start tag there must be a closing tag and within each tag set there should be only one operation(author) taking place. Don't even think about nesting quotes within quotes until you master the basics.

Wherein they happened in numerical order.
Stick to 1
Be wary of 2
Pass an examination before attempting 3

I don't need your help, nor do I want it. You are especially mean spirited and I really don't want to talk to you about the book anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Incorrect. The best possible outcome for both prisoners collectively is for neither to confess, in which case they both serve one month in prison.

Incorrect. The actual outcome when both prisoners act rationally is that both will confess, and both will therefore serve 3 months in prison.

The two are different because the best collective outcome is only achievable if both parties know for sure that the other will co-operate. So long as this cannot be guaranteed, it is in the best interests of each individual to not co-operate and instead confess. For person A (and vice versa) so long as person B may or may not confess, it is best for person A to confess - no matter what person B does, in each case person A is better off to confess - despite the fact the best possible collective result requires neither to confess. This is why in these actual circumstances the best collective result will tend not to be achieved.

The general lesson to be learned, Peacegirl, is that for an action (or refraining from a particular action) to be in the best collective interest of a group of rational people is no guarantee at all that it will be selected, and where there is no guarantee of unanimous co-operation or enforcement it is almost certain not to be selected (so long as there is some motivation at the individual level to not co-operate).

If you still can't see the obvious relevance here for the no-blame postulate, then I will explain it for you. But first I need you to tell me if you now understand the dilemma, and if you dispute anything of what I have just explained.

Are you assuming that there won't be the cooperation necessary for this new world to work because no one will know what someone else is going to do, therefore they will choose not to cooperate in their own self-interest? Is that it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It most certainly does.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it doesn't Peacegirl. Firstly, it is an imperative command rather than a proposition, so it isn't even the kind of thing that can be true or false, never mind something that can be proven true.

We're back to square one. He proposed that man's will is not free. This is a corollary of determinism. You may think differently but it seems to me that this isn't even contested in philosophical circles. Determinism = no blame.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So it isn't something proven true in the course of proving something else.

But it is. It is a corollary of determinism.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And secondly, it isn't even a consequence, conclusion, or result. It is simply a prescriptive postulate you would have the whole world adopt because of the (alleged) favorable consequences of doing so once it is realized that the will is (allegedly) not free.

This is not a postulate Spacemonkey, and until you realize this you will fight me tooth and nail.

pos·tu·late/ˈpäsCHəˌlāt/

Verb

Suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

Noun

A thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are completely wrong. Everyone will have an opportunity to increase their standard of living. The standard of living that is guaranteed is the amount of money a person is making when the transition begins. If a person is on welfare, a basic standard will become his guarantee, but again this does not mean he can't increase his standard of living and that he is forever stuck in a lower income bracket. He could become a millionaire and may never need help from the guarantee again.
...

I don't need your help, nor do I want it. You are especially mean spirited and I really don't want to talk to you about the book anymore.

The guarantee is set up so all millionaires are guaranteed to receive their current weekly wages. Those wages are what create poverty. Every time money is created, it simultaneously creates debt because it is loaned at interest. The millionaires are hoarding the money required to pay off debt and, even if they emptied their savings accounts out of the goodness of their hearts, there would still be debt left over. China pretty much owns the USA right now. Add to my "what do you know about evil, peacegirl?" a second question: "what do you know about money, peacegirl?"

I agree, you don't need my help, you need professional help. It's not mean spirited to try and get someone to seek help when they need it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are completely wrong. Everyone will have an opportunity to increase their standard of living. The standard of living that is guaranteed is the amount of money a person is making when the transition begins. If a person is on welfare, a basic standard will become his guarantee, but again this does not mean he can't increase his standard of living and that he is forever stuck in a lower income bracket. He could become a millionaire and may never need help from the guarantee again.
...

I don't need your help, nor do I want it. You are especially mean spirited and I really don't want to talk to you about the book anymore.

Originally Posted by koan

The guarantee is set up so all millionaires are guaranteed to receive their current weekly wages. Those wages are what create poverty. Every time money is created, it simultaneously creates debt because it is loaned at interest. The millionaires are hoarding the money required to pay off debt and, even if they emptied their savings accounts out of the goodness of their hearts, there would still be debt left over. China pretty much owns the USA right now. Add to my "what do you know about evil, peacegirl?" a second question: "what do you know about money, peacegirl?"

Interest is going to be very low, and the guarantee is not going to charge interest.

Originally Posted by koan

I agree, you don't need my help, you need professional help. It's not mean spirited to try and get someone to seek help when they need it.

You need to go back to India and learn about love, because you are anything but loving. Good bye. And don't post to me again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you assuming that there won't be the cooperation necessary for this new world to work because no one will know what someone else is going to do, therefore they will choose not to cooperate in their own self-interest? Is that it?

I'm not assuming anything. At the moment I'm just asking if you understand the prisoner's dilemma and agree with what I just explained can be learned from it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one. He proposed that man's will is not free. This is a corollary of determinism. You may think differently but it seems to me that this isn't even contested in philosophical circles. Determinism = no blame.

But it is. It is a corollary of determinism.

This is not a postulate Spacemonkey, and until you realize this you will fight me tooth and nail.

You don't have the faintest idea of what goes on in philosophical circles, or of what is or is not there contested. That determinism = no blame is massively contested.

"Thou shalt not blame" is a prescriptive command. It cannot be true or false. It can only be adopted or not adopted as something to follow. Therefore it cannot be either proved, or proved in the course of proving something else. It cannot be a corollary.

As a corollary it would have to be changed to "People will not blame others when they know that the will is not free". But this has never been proved at all. People can and will blame others so long as they view harmful actions to be bad and something one should feel bad about. You agreed that these judgements/feelings will not disappear, but that people will instead simply choose not to act upon them once they see what can (allegedly) be achieved by choosing to adopt a no-blame principle.

This is why I earlier asked you whether the absence of blame was meant to be something derived from his arguments regarding free will and satisfaction, or rather something to be adopted by all on the basis of the better world it (allegedly) makes possible. If the former, then he is refuted by the fact that he fails to consider both sides of his equation in both contexts (that of conscience and that of blaming others). And if the latter, then he is refuted by the point I am drawing towards with the prisoner's dilemma. If both the former and the latter (which is the answer you gave), then he is refuted by both objections.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by koan

I agree, you don't need my help, you need professional help. It's not mean spirited to try and get someone to seek help when they need it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to go back to India and learn about love, because you are anything but loving. Good bye. And don't post to me again.

Peacegirl, that is a very mean thing to say.

[LadyShea]

He did not say we won't need insurance. He said the guarantee will cover emergencies so this type of coverage won't be needed. He did not say all insurance is going to become obsolete. Again, you have no clue what you're reading. You must be skipping all over the place and that's what you call careful reading?

So what kind of insurance will be needed and/or used in the Golden Age?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interest is going to be very low, and the guarantee is not going to charge interest.

You need to go back to India and learn about love, because you are anything but loving. Good bye. And don't post to me again.

Why India? Is that your latent racism talking?

[Awareness]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why India? Is that your latent racism talking?

No, that's peace girl Ladyshea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, that is a very mean thing to say.

Maybe it was a mean thing to say, but she's had meaner things to say. I don't need to converse with someone who is on such a high horse.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why India? Is that your latent racism talking?

Ladyshea, stay out of it okay? I have friends who are from India.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ladyshea, stay out of it okay? I have friends who are from India.

LOL!

Anyway, why did you tell her to go back to India? That's a very, very odd thing to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one. He proposed that man's will is not free. This is a corollary of determinism. You may think differently but it seems to me that this isn't even contested in philosophical circles. Determinism = no blame.

But it is. It is a corollary of determinism.

This is not a postulate Spacemonkey, and until you realize this you will fight me tooth and nail.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have the faintest idea of what goes on in philosophical circles, or of what is or is not there contested. That determinism = no blame is massively contested.

Not in its pure form Spacemonkey. You keep trying to justify punishment, but you're not allowing Lessans to extend this knowledge without prefacing how you are going to get people to do what is morally correct. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming that blameworthiness is the only way to change behavior for the better.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

"Thou shalt not blame" is a prescriptive command. It cannot be true or false. It can only be adopted or not adopted as something to follow. Therefore it cannot be either proved, or proved in the course of proving something else. It cannot be a corollary.

That's true, it is a prescriptive demand, but once it is established that this is the only way to achieve world peace, people will want to be a part of this new world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As a corollary it would have to be changed to "People will not blame others when they know that the will is not free". But this has never been proved at all. People can and will blame others so long as they view harmful actions to be bad and something one should feel bad about. You agreed that these judgements/feelings will not disappear, but that people will instead simply choose not to act upon them once they see what can (allegedly) be achieved by choosing to adopt a no-blame principle.

You are jumping the gun Spacemonkey. It will be proved and when it is, people will want this new world. Man can only move in the direction that is better for himself, not worse. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "these judgments/feelings will not disappear. People will choose not to blame when they see that not blaming is better than blaming in getting the desired result, which is our deliverance from evil.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is why I earlier asked you whether the absence of blame was meant to be something derived from his arguments regarding free will and satisfaction, or rather something to be adopted by all on the basis of the better world it (allegedly) makes possible. If the former, then he is refuted by the fact that he fails to consider both sides of his equation in both contexts (that of conscience and that of blaming others).

The absense of blame follows from the proof that man's will is not free. He has considered both sides of the equation in both contexts.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the latter, then he is refuted by the point I am drawing towards with the prisoner's dilemma. If both the former and the latter (which is the answer you gave), then he is refuted by both objections.

These principles are not refuted by flawed logic, and it is flawed. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL!

Anyway, why did you tell her to go back to India? That's a very, very odd thing to say.

She talks about how enlightened she is. India is a place where many people go to find enlightenment. I told her she needs more training and more love because she does not show any of these characteristics. It's gotten to be too much for me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not in its pure form Spacemonkey. You keep trying to justify punishment, but you're not allowing Lessans to extend this knowledge without prefacing how you are going to get people to do what is morally correct. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming that blameworthiness is the only way to change behavior for the better.

I'm not assuming that at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, it is a prescriptive demand, but once it is established that this is the only way to achieve world peace, people will want to be a part of this new world.

So it's not a corollary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are jumping the gun Spacemonkey. It will be proved and when it is, people will want this new world.

You are jumping the gun by assuming it will eventually be proved before it has been proved and before you have any evidence in its favor.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People will choose not to blame when they see that not blaming is better than blaming in getting the desired result, which is our deliverance from evil.

The absense of blame follows from the proof that man's will is not free.

Once again you are flip-flopping over why there will be no blame. Either people will be unable to blame once they realize that man's will is not free, or they could still choose to blame but will instead choose not to when they see that not blaming is better. You don't seem able to make up your mind whether it is the absence of free will or the benefits of not blaming that will prevent blame.

If the former, then you are wrong because people can and will still blame just so long as they can judge harmful acts that are bad and something one should feel bad about, and such judgements must continue if one is to be able to anticipate having a guilty conscience. If the latter, then you are wrong because having some no-blame principle be in the collective best interests of a group of people is still not enough to ensure that they will follow it, especially when they are individually motivated not to. And if both, then he is refuted on both counts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has considered both sides of the equation in both contexts.

No, he didn't. He never considered his satisfaction principle as possibly having any effect on one's judgements of self-blame via conscience. And he never considered his principle of not being compelled against one's will as possibly having any effect on one's judgments of the blameworthiness of others. As usual, you are just negating whatever I say without paying any attention to what you are saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These principles are not refuted by flawed logic, and it is flawed. Sorry.

And once again you are retreating behind your faith-based and wholly unsupported assertions that my logic is flawed. You are as predictable as you are wrong.