A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

To be honest, I followed Peacegirl here from another forum, and based on that exchange I thought she was a sane and rational person with a few silly ideas. I was not aware of her 8 year (at that time) history on other forums. I have been hoping that engaging her on topics other than the book might bring her back to reality, but it appears to be too late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you fail to notice that the discussion had nothing to do with you or Lessans, peacegirl? You will use anything to justify returning won't you?

Stop using this thread as a junkyard, and I will never come back. I have no desire to be here, but I will not let this thread be used this way. And, btw, you are not the administrator, so back off LadyShea. I can come here as long as I want, and there is nothing you can say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

To be honest, I followed Peacegirl here from another forum, and based on that exchange I thought she was a sane and rational person with a few silly ideas. I was not aware of her 8 year (at that time) history on other forums. I have been hoping that engaging her on topics other than the book might bring her back to reality, but it appears to be too late.

You still have absolutely no undertanding of this book yet you come off like you do. You don't grasp the two-sided equation, not even a little bit. And the fact that you said doctors wouldn't need credentials to practice in the new world, is laughable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop using this thread as a junkyard, and I will never come back. I have no desire to be here, but I will not let this thread be used this way.

You have no control over how "the thread is used". What does that even mean? It's a thread, people post stuff and discuss stuff.

And, btw, you are not the administrator, so back off LadyShea. I can come here as long as I want, and there is nothing you can say.

Of course you can come here, who said differently? What does my not being an admin have to do with anything?

And I can say whatever I want, such as you look like an ass when you come back just to make snarky comments and ridiculous pronouncements...like this one.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have absolutely no undertanding of this book yet you come off like you do. You don't grasp the two-sided equation, not even a little bit. And the fact that you said doctors wouldn't need credentials to practice in the new world, is laughable.

A couple of things:

1. (with reference to my last remark): I said I looked at the website, but my comments were related to your comments on how we could achieve some sort of utopian state devoid of war and crime (LadyShea deserves to be thanked again for making this observation - I hope you get the distinction being made, Peacegirl). When you re-route the argument the way you do it reads very suspiciously.
2. Merely slamming something as "laughable" does not a coherent and thoughtful argument make. Nor does it give you or the ideas you espouse any additional credibility - in fact, quite the opposite. I'd expect something like that on YouTube discussions or the Toronto Sun discussion forums - but in my brief time here I see clearly that many people are perfectly capable of more sophisticated argument and exchange of ideas than you are capable of providing. I hope you prove me wrong on this point, but your style of argumentation is almost worse than those of atheists.

Some friendly criticism: stop hiding behind your holy book (whatever that is) and defend your own statements when they are critiqued.

[LadyShea]

the fact that you said doctors wouldn't need credentials to practice in the new world, is laughable.

Too bad for you that is exactly what Lessans said, unless you re using an idiosyncratic definition of "credentials".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have found a better home for this discovery...

Where?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...where people do not use their own "intelligence" to determine what is true and what isn't.

What do they use instead?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still have absolutely no undertanding of this book yet you come off like you do. You don't grasp the two-sided equation, not even a little bit. And the fact that you said doctors wouldn't need credentials to practice in the new world, is laughable.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

A couple of things:
[LIST=1][*](with reference to my last remark): I said I looked at the website, but my comments were related to your comments on how we could achieve some sort of utopian state devoid of war and crime (LadyShea deserves to be thanked again for making this observation - I hope you get the distinction being made, Peacegirl). When you re-route the argument the way you do it reads very suspiciously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea knows enough regarding this hard to follow thread to clue you in, so I give her that much.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

[*]Merely slamming something as "laughable" does not a coherent and thoughtful argument make. Nor does it give you or the ideas you espouse any additional credibility - in fact, quite the opposite. I'd expect something like that on YouTube discussions or the Toronto Sun discussion forums - but in my brief time here I see clearly that many people are perfectly capable of more sophisticated argument and exchange of ideas than you are capable of providing. I hope you prove me wrong on this point, but your style of argumentation is almost worse than those of atheists.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know the history I have here with thedoc, so you cannot make an unbiased judgment. I have no idea what you have read, but I can tell you that thedoc has no grasp of this discovery whatsoever. My comment as to his ridiculous remark about there being no need for credentials in the new world, still stands.

Originally Posted by traumaturist

Some friendly criticism: stop hiding behind your holy book (whatever that is) and defend your own statements when they are critiqued.

You don't know a thing about this "holy" book, so your criticism is without merit.

[Spacemonkey]

Why have you come back?

What do you hope to gain from further discussion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where?

Nevermind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...where people do not use their own "intelligence" to determine what is true and what isn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do they use instead?

They need to keep an open-mind because oftentimes one's own intellect is not capable of determining the veracity of a particular claim.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nevermind.

No, really. Where?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They need to keep an open-mind because oftentimes one's own intellect is not capable of determining the veracity of a particular claim.

So what do they use to determine what is true and what isn't?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why have you come back?

What do you hope to gain from further discussion?

I'm not starting the conversation again with the same group of people. I came back because I happened to see that people were using this thread as a wastebasket. Why can't people start their own threads instead of dumping their thoughts into this one. Let this thread rest in peace, so that I can.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know the history I have here with thedoc, so you cannot make an unbiased judgment.

Wouldn't I need to know the history in order to be biased?!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know a thing about this "holy" book, so your criticism is without merit.

Again: . Why do I need to know anything about this book since I was criticizing your failure to defend your own statements apart from this book (or any book for that matter)?

The more unapologetic your self-contradictory logic is, the more it amuses me.

[traumaturgist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not starting the conversation again with the same group of people. I came back because I happened to see that people were using this thread as a wastebasket. Why can't people start their own threads instead of dumping their thoughts into this one. Let this thread rest in peace, so that I can.

So you're admitting that your psychological projections on to this thread lead to a certain compulsion to repeat?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not starting the conversation again with the same group of people.

Yes you are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I came back because I happened to see that people were using this thread as a wastebasket. Why can't people start their own threads instead of dumping their thoughts into this one. Let this thread rest in peace, so that I can.

What do you care what happens in the thread after you've abandoned it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, really. Where?

Spacemonkey, why should I tell you when all you will do is try to get people to dismiss this knowledge as nonsense just like you have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They need to keep an open-mind because oftentimes one's own intellect is not capable of determining the veracity of a particular claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what do they use to determine what is true and what isn't?

Careful observation, sound reasoning, and empirical testing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, why should I tell you when all you will do is try to get people to dismiss this knowledge as nonsense just like you have.

Why would you bring it up if it's some kind of secret?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Careful observation, sound reasoning, and empirical testing.

Which is exactly what we've been using. But tell me, how does one do any of these things without using one's own intellect?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you are.

What do you care what happens in the thread after you've abandoned it?

I do care. I don't like the thought that this thread has become a wastebasket for any old thing people want to discuss. Why bring this thread into it at all? Let people create their own threads.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do care. I don't like the thought that this thread has become a wastebasket for any old thing people want to discuss. Why bring this thread into it at all? Let people create their own threads.

Bad luck. People get to post wherever they want and say whatever they like. Your compulsive return to the thread isn't going to change that. If you don't like seeing other people post here then you probably should have stopped returning to read the thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would you bring it up if it's some kind of secret?

Which is exactly what we've been using. But tell me, how does one do any of these things without using one's own intellect?

I didn't mean intellect actually. Everyone has intellect. I meant intellectual capacity. There's a difference. Sometimes people overestimate their abilities in determining the truth of something. Nageli, the leading authority of his time, thought Mendel was a semi-amateur because he disagreed with the very core of Mendel's discovery. Now who would disagree with Nageli when he was the father of genetics, yet he ended up being wrong. None of you are leading authorities on this subject, yet you act like Nageli. You think you proved Lessans wrong yet you aren't even close to being a leading authority on this subject, which is disturbing to say the least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bad luck. People get to post wherever they want and say whatever they like. Your compulsive return to the thread isn't going to change that. If you don't like seeing other people post here then you probably should have stopped returning to read the thread.

That's true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't mean intellect actually. Everyone has intellect. I meant intellectual capacity. There's a difference.

So where is this place you've found where people don't use their own intellectual capacity in determining truth from falsehood, and what are they using instead?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes people overestimate their abilities in determining the truth of something.

Yes, like you and Lessans for instance.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, really. Where?

It isn't very hard to find, based on some simple, obvious search terms. A quick read of the thread indicates she's having exactly the same amount of success.

[LadyShea]

LOL! She went for the douchebag.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by traumaturgist

Wouldn't I need to know the history in order to be biased?!

This thread will not give you any clear knowledge. It's all garbled. You can be biased toward a certain way of thinking and not realize it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know a thing about this "holy" book, so your criticism is without merit.

Originally Posted by "traumaturgist"}Again: :?. Why do I need to know anything about this book since I was criticizing [I

your[/I] failure to defend your own statements apart from this book (or any book for that matter)?

The more unapologetic your self-contradictory logic is, the more it amuses me.

Where is my logic self-contradictory, and where have I failed to defend my statements?