A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Go to Chapter Two and read it. Then get back to me.

I cannot find any reason to believe the description of conscience is correct.

You don't know what you're talking about Vivisectus. It is so clearly explained I don't know why you don't see his reasoning. It's right there.

Are you honestly struggling to understand the question? I find that hard to believe. I will try to explain one more time, with an example.
The problem is not that the explanation of what the author thinks is going on is unclear. It is abundantly clear what the author (and you) believe. The problem is that there is no reason to assume his explanation is correct.
I can explain in great detail the theory that it is guilt that causes baldness in the human male. However, unless I then point to a reason to assume I am correct about this, it remains just that: a claim.
The book claims it is undeniably true that conscience works as described. But what is this claim based on? There is nothing in the book except for a description of what the author believes is going on where conscience is concerned.
This is the problem, and I do not think it is humanly possible to not understand it at this stage. If you try to pretend not to understand it again, I will have to draw the conclusion that you are simply a liar.

That's true, but the foundation is solid. I am positive that he is right about conscience. I am so positive I would chop off my hand to prove it, would you?

That’s nice – but it is neither here nor there. I know you are convinced. I am merely pointing out that you are convinced for reasons that cannot be found in the book. The book only has a description of what you and the author believe.

It's not absent.

Excellent! Then please provide same. If you cannot, then at this stage it is very clear that you are lying: it has been made clear enough for us to rule out misunderstanding.

He has Vivisectus. You really need to study Chapter Two again. If you really want to know whether this is a genuine discovery, that's the least you could do. That's what he urged people to do, read the book at least twice in the right sequence. You may have skimmed this chapter once, but that's not enough.

I have looked, but it is simply not there. And you seem unable to find it either.

Why don't you explain why it is undeniable that conscience works as the book describes? I do not think you know.

Wrong.

Again - either provide the case in favor of it, or I will consider you a liar, plain and simple. Please remember that we are not looking for WHAT you believe. We want to know why we should assume that belief is correct.

It works exactly this way. You can see it whenever someone does something considered wrong by others that he is then blamed for. What does he do? Most the time he doesn't admit wrongdoing if the punishment is severe. He will try to shift what is his responsibility, but when a more serious crime occurs, it's not that easy. He has to have alibi's and other concrete evidence to prove that he was not responsible. Even if he did do the crime, knowing that he would be questioned, if caught, is what his conscience needs for him to go ahead with the crime.

I see no reason to assume that is the case. What case do you make in favor of it?

You keep saying that, but you're incorrect. There is a strong reason to believe that conscience works this way because it makes absolute sense based on what he observed, so instead of taking all this time on posts that are unproductive, take the time to read the chapter and then report back. Have questions ready instead of telling me there's no meat in this chapter.

I do have a question, and it is "What is this strong reason to assume the book is correct about conscience?"

you say " There is a strong reason to believe that conscience works this way because it makes absolute sense based on what he observed"

...but that is just a different way of saying "He is just right because he is just right"

Either supply this strong reason, or admit you do not know. At this stage you must do either, or you are simply a liar.

There is no blunder to speak of. His observations were absolutely 100% spot on.

Great! Please show me why I should assume this is the case.

[Vivisectus]

Let me make it extra clear: what I am looking for is not a general claim that the answer is somewhere in chapter 2. I am also very well aware what it is that the author thinks is going on with human conscience, and I do not need a refresher course.

I would just like to know why I should assume it is correct, and where in the book I can find that reason.

You can answer me in your own words and explain to me why I should believe the book, or you can copy and paste the passage where it is explained. You can also simply say "I don't know". All these responses are honest and honorable.

Anything else is tantamount to lying, and frankly it is a tacit admission that you are also unaware of any good reason to believe the book is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If she didn't make it public who would be speculating? Giving people courage to do what?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She's a major celebrity! They have a very hard time keeping things secret. Photographers follow her around, and people saw her at the clinic and such. Something would have gotten out.

Not necessarily. There might be suspicion swirling around, but who cares. She is the least person to care about what people think. After awhile the suspicion would gradually fade as other news became top headlines.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And giving people the courage to get tested if they have reason to believe they are high risk, so they can address it or try to mitigate the risk before they have cancer. They may choose to address it with diet and exercise or other natural means just as easily, right? If you had an 87% chance of getting cancer, do you think knowing this would help you make decisions?

Yes I do, but I can't help but think that this is not the only goal of the breast cancer center.

This was a very rare case (at least that's what I read), therefore it doesn't apply to most breast cancer cases.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? It applied to her case. It may apply to a poster here at whose mother died at only 36. She has reason to believe she is high risk and may get tested sooner now.

Maybe, but I still wonder what the motive was for the breast cancer center to use her as a poster child for this rare mutation. I don't mean to imply that these people are out for one thing only ($$$), but it does becomes part of the equation anytime money is involved.

I am not even questioning her genuine motives to help people, but I do question the medical industry's motives because I don't believe it was pure. There is always this element of using a celebrity to make money. Maybe I'm jaded but that's how I feel, and just like you I stay on guard until proven otherwise.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for making money, your woo gurus have plenty of cancer clinics and supplement lines and various treatments, and make most of their money off distrust and fear of the medical establishment. They used her celebrity for their own ends too. Follow the money goes both ways.

That's true, and I'm not condoning quack therapies either. For those therapies that may have value in the alternative world, there's one major difference between those therapies and those offered in the medical establishment. It's very rare to see a serious side effect from taking a supplement or from receiving a non-invasive treatment. It is not so rare that someone may get a serious side effect from a pharmaceutical given by a trusted medical staff, or from surgery where there is always the potential for unexpected complications. Remember the Hippocratic oath which says: First do no harm.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why was this made public!? People shouldn't tell their stories in the media! It might make people decide too quickly to say no to conventional treatment!

Dr. Nalini Chilkov: One Woman's Story: Saying No to Conventional Cancer Treatment

I hope the woman in this article represents everyone who has a serious health condition. What I don't see in the media are people touting their survival from alternative options. Where is the Angelina Jolie of the alternative world? You said "follow the money" but there isn't the kind of money in the alternative world that can be found in pharmaceuticals that are patented, and surgerical procedures. One doctor stated that a double mastectomy brings in a lot of profit. If women start getting unnecessary double mastectomies because of Jolie's notoriety, it would be an absolute goldmine for those doctors, and that makes me suspicious. I'm not telling people what to do. That's not my reason for discussing this. In fact, I didn't think anyone would respond to this article, but since they have, I'm speaking my mind just like you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I cannot find any reason to believe the description of conscience is correct.

Are you honestly struggling to understand the question? I find that hard to believe. I will try to explain one more time, with an example.
The problem is not that the explanation of what the author thinks is going on is unclear. It is abundantly clear what the author (and you) believe. The problem is that there is no reason to assume his explanation is correct.
I can explain in great detail the theory that it is guilt that causes baldness in the human male. However, unless I then point to a reason to assume I am correct about this, it remains just that: a claim.
The book claims it is undeniably true that conscience works as described. But what is this claim based on? There is nothing in the book except for a description of what the author believes is going on where conscience is concerned.
This is the problem, and I do not think it is humanly possible to not understand it at this stage. If you try to pretend not to understand it again, I will have to draw the conclusion that you are simply a liar.

That’s nice – but it is neither here nor there. I know you are convinced. I am merely pointing out that you are convinced for reasons that cannot be found in the book. The book only has a description of what you and the author believe.

Excellent! Then please provide same. If you cannot, then at this stage it is very clear that you are lying: it has been made clear enough for us to rule out misunderstanding.

I have looked, but it is simply not there. And you seem unable to find it either.

Why don't you explain why it is undeniable that conscience works as the book describes? I do not think you know.

Again - either provide the case in favor of it, or I will consider you a liar, plain and simple. Please remember that we are not looking for WHAT you believe. We want to know why we should assume that belief is correct.

I see no reason to assume that is the case. What case do you make in favor of it?

I do have a question, and it is "What is this strong reason to assume the book is correct about conscience?"

you say " There is a strong reason to believe that conscience works this way because it makes absolute sense based on what he observed"

...but that is just a different way of saying "He is just right because he is just right"

No Vivisectus, his description is accurate, that's why, not just because he's right because he's right. You're trying to make this circular.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Either supply this strong reason, or admit you do not know. At this stage you must do either, or you are simply a liar.

I don't care what you think. I'll bet you never read this chapter like I asked you to. You're back to the same old responses with not one new question? That tells me something.

There is no blunder to speak of. His observations were absolutely 100% spot on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Great! Please show me why I should assume this is the case.

If you can't see the validity of his observations regarding conscience, as described in detail, you'll have to rely on faith that he is right, otherwise, your skepticism will prevent you from moving forward.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me make it extra clear: what I am looking for is not a general claim that the answer is somewhere in chapter 2. I am also very well aware what it is that the author thinks is going on with human conscience, and I do not need a refresher course.

Because you can see it for yourself. What he is describing is accurate (i.e., how people react when they are caught doing something against the law). Lessans is just describing what takes place in our world and it is easy to see when pointed out. When people are questioned for their part in a crime, it affords them the opportunity to shift their responsibility to something other than themselves in an effort to get leniency. It's not that difficult Vivisectus, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get it. It does take someone who is open to learning, which you are not. You have already made up your mind that he is wrong, and therefore you will not let this knowledge in. You are too busy trying to find flaws in his reasoning that aren't there. I know you didn't read this chapter carefully. It's very obvious to me that misplaced skepticism can ruin any chances for understanding.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

p. 68 Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that
causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does
not cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under
which his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is
not responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child
says, “Look what you made me do” when you know you didn’t make
him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and
not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to
shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why
else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is also
true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished
for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him
think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and
punishment he doesn’t want.

A great confusion exists because it is
assumed that if man does something to hurt another he could always
excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will
is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications which turned
philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following
dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical
points.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would just like to know why I should assume it is correct, and where in the book I can find that reason.

Because it is correct. If you are so convinced he's not right, there's no point in continuing to discuss this with you. You will keep saying the same thing, and it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can answer me in your own words and explain to me why I should believe the book, or you can copy and paste the passage where it is explained. You can also simply say "I don't know". All these responses are honest and honorable.

Anything else is tantamount to lying, and frankly it is a tacit admission that you are also unaware of any good reason to believe the book is correct.

You are so off the beaten track, I'm not even answering this. It's another waste of time.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl has been claiming that if someone well known, like a celebrity or a scientist, were to endorce the book more people would pay attention and be ready to accept what is written as being true. It occures to me that if Peacegirl continues in her efforts she may well get exactly what she is looking for, a well known person who endorses the book. There are many individuals who are well known to the general public but are dead, Einstein, Edison, Galileo, Aristotle, All mentioned in the book or by Peacegirl. Peacegirl will possibly be adding another name to the list of notorious individuals especially if she starts reaching beyond the narrow limits of internet forums. Peacegirl will add the name Lessans to the list of names known by many of the genersl public, however his name will be known as a Buffoon of an Idiot and one of the best of crackpots. I'm not sure how much the endorsment by Lessans will help Peacegirls efforts to become rich and famous.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about assuming anything. What he describes is exactly what happens in our society.

How could Lessans possibly know what was happening in society by shutting himself off in a dimly lit pool hall hustling pool and reading dusty out of date books?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point; you believe you are capable of understanding what determines a scientific proof, and you're using your self-appointed position at FF as spokesperson to sway people to your side.

FYI, Lady Shea does not speak for me. I speak for myself.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, and I'm not condoning quack therapies either. For those therapies that may have value in the alternative world, there's one major difference from those therapies offered in the medical establishment. It's very rare to see a serious complication from taking a supplement or getting one of their treatments.

You neglect to include the risks associated with pursuing alternative therapies in lieu of treatments with well attested success rates. Some alternative therapies may return positive results and some may just do no direct harm. However, if the choice to pursue a course of alternative therapy (one without a proven track record) precludes one from pursuing a known effective therapy, then the alternative therapy has caused an indirect harm.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One doctor stated that a double mastectomy brings in a lot of profit.

More, do you suppose, than surgery coupled with an extensive course of chemo and radiation therapy?

ETA:
I am a big proponent of coffee enemas, both for the treatment and the prevention of cancer. In fact, I am having one right now, for purely prophylactic purposes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

FYI, Lady Shea does not speak for me. I speak for myself.

I hope so because it seems that the bandwagon of naysayers is getting larger and larger. There is definitely a group think mentality in forums of this type, and you can't get away from it. Why do you think I'm not going to any other forums? It's not that Lessans is wrong; it's the venue that I'm in that makes it impossible for me to make any headway whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You neglect to include the risks associated with pursuing alternative therapies in lieu of treatments with well attested success rates. Some alternative therapies may return positive results and some may just do no direct harm. However, if the choice to pursue a course of alternative therapy (one without a proven track record) precludes one from pursuing a known effective therapy, then the alternative therapy has caused an indirect harm.

I don't buy into that line of thought. You wouldn't jump into an aggressive therapy as the first line of defense, would you? I would try everything I could that is non-invasive first, and then as a last resort I would do something more aggressive. But that's me. Everyone has the right to do what he thinks is best.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One doctor stated that a double mastectomy brings in a lot of profit.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

More, do you suppose, than surgery coupled with an extensive course of chemo and radiation therapy?

I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure surgeries offer the doctor more in the way of profit. Why do you think C-sections have jumped up so high? Unfortunately, these surgeries do carry a certain amount of risk.

It takes at least four weeks to recover from a Caesarean section -- which involves cutting through the skin, tissue, and uterine wall, extracting the baby and placenta, and sewing the incision -- compared with one or two weeks for vaginal deliveries. The surgery carries with it the risk of infection, blood loss, and blood clots, as well as other potentially fatal complications.

What doctors don't tell you about C-sections - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Angakuk

ETA:
I am a big proponent of coffee enemas, both for the treatment and the prevention of cancer. In fact, I am having one right, for purely prophylactic purposes.

I know the Gerson Institute uses coffee enemas for the treatment of cancer. I also saw something on T.V. called My Crazy Obsession where a couple is addicted to coffee enemas. They said it makes them feel good (whatever that means), and they won't give it up.

[Vivisectus]

No Vivisectus, his description is accurate, that's why, not just because he's right because he's right. You're trying to make this circular.

That sentence should run "his description is accurate and I know that because..." but once again it does not.

Essentially, you are saying "He is just right, and there is an end to it".

I don't care what you think. I'll bet you never read this chapter like I asked you to. You're back to the same old responses with not one new question? That tells me something.

I have given you more than reasonable time to answer a very simple question. You have not done so, and once again avoid doing so. As it happens, I did read the eye-watering prose again, even though you have no right pretending to be a teacher of any kind as you have obviously not done your homework yourself. More fool me I guess.

You, madam, are a liar and a fraud.

If you can't see the validity of his observations regarding conscience, as described in detail, you'll have to rely on faith that he is right, otherwise, your skepticism will prevent you from moving forward.

Oh I see - it is somehow my fault that there is no reason to assume the book is correct? When you yourself are unable to tell me why I should?

You have been given more than reasonable opportunity to prove yourself otherwise, but I feel I have no choice at this point. You are a liar and a fraud. If your father was like you, then good riddance. If not, then shame on you. You have made him a liar by association.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What he is describing is accurate (i.e., how people react when they are caught doing something against the law). Lessans is just describing what takes place in our world and it is easy to see when pointed out. When people are questioned for their part in a crime, it affords them the opportunity to shift their responsibility to something other than themselves in an effort to get leniency.

Even if Lessans' descriptions of such behaviors are accurate, it does not necessarily follow that the meaning he assigns to those behaviors is correct. That his interpretation is correct is not self-evidently true. What Vivisectus, and others, are asking for is some evidence that he has correctly interpreted what he claims to have observed. That is something you have consistently failed to provide.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That sentence should run "his description is accurate and I know that because..." but once again it does not.

Essentially, you are saying "He is just right, and there is an end to it".

If that's how you feel then we need to say our goodbyes.

Oh I see - it is somehow my fault that there is no reason to assume the book is correct? When you yourself are unable to tell me why I should?

What is the discovery Vivisectus? You don't know for the life of you. You're not trying to understand this knowledge, so don't pretend you are. You won't even consider that his observations are spot on, so there's nothing more to say. Move on!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have been given more than reasonable opportunity to prove yourself otherwise, but I feel I have no choice at this point. You are a liar and a fraud. If your father was like you, then good riddance. If not, then shame on you. You have made him a liar by association.

You are rude, you know that. I don't need you here. Good riddance to you too.

[Vivisectus]

Because you can see it for yourself. What he is describing is accurate (i.e., how people react when they are caught doing something against the law). Lessans is just describing what takes place in our world and it is easy to see when pointed out. When people are questioned for their part in a crime, it affords them the opportunity to shift their responsibility to something other than themselves in an effort to get leniency. It's not that difficult Vivisectus, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get it. It does take someone who is open to learning, which you are not. You have already made up your mind that he is wrong, and therefore you will not let this knowledge in. You are too busy trying to find flaws in his reasoning that aren't there. I know you didn't read this chapter carefully. It's very obvious to me that misplaced skepticism can ruin any chances for understanding.

Once again you merely repeat what it is you believe without supporting it. That is dishonest. I have given you every opportunity to do otherwise, but you seem unwilling to do so. I can only conclude that you are a liar. It makes me a little sad, because while I knew you would bend the truth to some considerable extent to defend your father, I was not fully aware just how dishonest you were willing to be. I thought you were more decent than this. I guess I was wrong.

Because it is correct. If you are so convinced he's not right, there's no point in continuing to discuss this with you. You will keep saying the same thing, and it's wrong

.

I should assume it is correct because it is correct, and my asking for a reason why I should assume it is correct is just wrong. Deary dear. I am sure your father tried to raise you better than this, peacegirl. How did you become such a dogmatist?

You are so off the beaten track, I'm not even answering this. It's another waste of time.

You and I both know you wont answer it because you have no answer to it. You are just lying to cover that up.

Peacegirl, I always thought of you as a bit of a dingbat, but I really believed you were basically honest. I made fun of the more bizarre crackpottery you came up with in your attempts to reconcile your ideas with reality, but I always felt that behind all the nutsy stuff there was an honest but misguided person trying to make sense of something that just does not add up and coming up with strange results. Despite it all, I had some respect for you.

I really feel sad to see that this was a mistake. You are lying to me, and I do not appreciate that. You know just as well as I do that no matter what you believe about the validity of your fathers ideas, the proof, the "undeniableness" that he promises is not in chapter 2. He describes what he believes, but he does not even attempt to explain why we should believe it.

I have given you every opportunity to admit this with some grace. You have continually refused to do so. I am afraid I have no option left but to consider you a sad little liar. I wish it was not so and I hope you get better some time soon. Telling the truth is a matter of respect for yourself as well as others. Let me know when you find enough of either to be honest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Even if Lessans' descriptions of such behaviors are accurate, it does not necessarily follow that the meaning he assigns to those behaviors is correct. That his interpretation is correct is not self-evidently true. What Vivisectus, and others, are asking for is some evidence that he has correctly interpreted what he claims to have observed. That is something you have consistently failed to provide.

I'm sorry Angakuk, but Lessans' reasoning is so completely accurate that if you gave it a chance, you would see this for yourself. I can't offer the empirical evidence they are looking for. That is yet to come, but that shouldn't preclude people from wanting to understand his reasoning. Of course it's not self-evidently true or it would have been discovered already, but it can be understood, and he did a good job at explaining what he observed. Something is very wrong here.

[peacegirl]

Because you can see it for yourself. What he is describing is accurate (i.e., how people react when they are caught doing something against the law). Lessans is just describing what takes place in our world and it is easy to see when pointed out. When people are questioned for their part in a crime, it affords them the opportunity to shift their responsibility to something other than themselves in an effort to get leniency. It's not that difficult Vivisectus, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get it. It does take someone who is open to learning, which you are not. You have already made up your mind that he is wrong, and therefore you will not let this knowledge in. You are too busy trying to find flaws in his reasoning that aren't there. I know you didn't read this chapter carefully. It's very obvious to me that misplaced skepticism can ruin any chances for understanding.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again you merely repeat what it is you believe without supporting it. That is dishonest. I have given you every opportunity to do otherwise, but you seem unwilling to do so. I can only conclude that you are a liar. It makes me a little sad, because while I knew you would bend the truth to some considerable extent to defend your father, I was not fully aware just how dishonest you were willing to be. I thought you were more decent than this. I guess I was wrong.

I swear I don't know what the hell you're talking about Vivisectus. I'm not a liar and I'm not dishonest.

Because it is correct. If you are so convinced he's not right, there's no point in continuing to discuss this with you. You will keep saying the same thing, and it's wrong

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I should assume it is correct because it is correct, and my asking for a reason why I should assume it is correct is just wrong. Deary dear. I am sure your father tried to raise you better than this, peacegirl. How did you become such a dogmatist?

It's very sad to me that you have absolutely no questions. You want me to answer you in a way that I can't (I'm not even sure what you want because his description is there in black and white), and then to call me a liar is plain stupid.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can answer me in your own words and explain to me why I should believe the book, or you can copy and paste the passage where it is explained. You can also simply say "I don't know". All these responses are honest and honorable.

Anything else is tantamount to lying, and frankly it is a tacit admission that you are also unaware of any good reason to believe the book is correct.

You are so off the beaten track, I'm not even answering this. It's another waste of time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You and I both know you wont answer it because you have no answer to it. You are just lying to cover that up.

What am I covering up Vivisectus?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, I always thought of you as a bit of a dingbat, but I really believed you were basically honest. I made fun of the more bizarre crackpottery you came up with in your attempts to reconcile your ideas with reality, but I always felt that behind all the nutsy stuff there was an honest but misguided person trying to make sense of something that just does not add up and coming up with strange results. Despite it all, I had some respect for you.

I really feel sad to see that this was a mistake. You are lying to me, and I do not appreciate that. You know just as well as I do that no matter what you believe about the validity of your fathers ideas, the proof, the "undeniableness" that he promises is not in chapter 2. He describes what he believes, but he does not even attempt to explain why we should believe it.

I will tell you why you should believe it; BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, AND BECAUSE IT'S TRUE, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PREVENT WAR AND CRIME. YOU DON'T SEEM TO GET THIS VIVISECTUS, SO CALL ME NAMES; HATE ME ALL YOU WANT. IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP THIS NEW WORLD FROM BECOMING A REALITY.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have given you every opportunity to admit this with some grace. You have continually refused to do so. I am afraid I have no option left but to consider you a sad little liar. I wish it was not so and I hope you get better some time soon. Telling the truth is a matter of respect for yourself as well as others. Let me know when you find enough of either to be honest.

You're so completely off course that it makes no sense to continue the conversation. Good luck Vivisectus in whatever you do, but our time together has now ended.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl is completely incapable of distinguishing between a description and support for the accuracy of that description. She actually seems to think that the more detailed the description the more accurate it has thereby been shown to be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope so because it seems that the bandwagon of naysayers is getting larger and larger.

Then your math skills are just as lacking as your other cognitive skills, there are only a few regular posters left on this thread compaired to all those who have posted over the last 2+ years. Certainly if you are counting all those who have been critical of you and Lessans over the last 10 years the number will grow slowly but if you are counting active posters it is definately getting smaller as many of those previous posters are not even thinking about you now. Actually I can't wait for you to really start promoting the book because the "Bandwagon of Naysayers" will grow by leaps and bounds and the body of supporters will remain as it is, One.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it's the venue that I'm in that makes it impossible for me to make any headway whatsoever.

The reason you are not making any headway is that you just will not get on with it and ignore the Naysayers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope the woman in this article represents everyone who has a serious health condition. What I don't see in the media are people touting their survival from alternative options. Where is the Angelina Jolie of the alternative world?

Yeah, where are they? If these treatments work really well why aren't there more success stories being shared?

You said "follow the money" but there isn't the kind of money in the alternative world that can be found in pharmaceuticals that are patented, and surgerical procedures.

The Burzynski clinic charges in the 10's of thousands. What are you talking about?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't buy into that line of thought. You wouldn't jump into an aggressive therapy as the first line of defense, would you? I would try everything I could that is non-invasive first, and then as a last resort I would do something more aggressive. But that's me. Everyone has the right to do what he thinks is best.

BullShit! You just don't know what you are talking about, you and Lessans were the kind of people who thought everyone else should be just like you are, or there was something wrong with them. I know what that kind of person is, - stupid! I was diagnosed with Carpal Tunnel and after the surgen outlined the possible treatment options I went straight for the surgery. Not everyone thinks like you and Lessans thought and that is why Lessans silly ideas about consciense will not work, not everyone thinks and feels the same way about morality and ethics. There are probably as many different concepts about right and wrong as there are people in the world, except for a few who have been brainwashed by their fathers to think exactly the same way he did.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't even consider that his observations are spot on, so there's nothing more to say.

Of course no-one considers that Lessans observations were "spot on" because they weren't, Lessans was wrong and so are you, you're are just a chip off the old blockhead.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a skeptic but you are not a scientist. You are using your skepticism as if it brings you greater honor. It does not LadyShea. Actually, it is turning you into a snob. You know nothing, absolutely nothing when it comes to whether this knowledge is accurate or not.

What are you babbling about great honor and snobbery? I use my skepticism to help me navigate life...because it is the best method I have found of doing so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you would not come off so bold with your "expertise" by saying that these principles are fallacious.

I think Lessans displayed fallacious reasoning...I demonstrated exactly what I thought was fallacious and why I thought so. You can refute it anytime you wish.

Why do you consider yourself that important in determining a scientific truth?

What? Important to whom?

I am important to myself in determining what I think is true.

Originally Posted by peacegir

You're out in left field all because of the high esteem you place on your opinions, and that's all they are.

Yes, I have even stated multiple times that everything I've claimed is my opinion. What else would I express other than my thoughts and opinions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see how wrong your conclusions COULD be based on your limited understanding, or may I say your incapability of understanding?

I could be wrong about lots of things and am open to correcting my understanding of those things.

That's just the point; you believe you are capable of understanding what determines a scientific proof, and you're using your self-appointed position at FF as spokesperson to sway people to your side. You believe you are capable of making these determinations and you are speaking for everyone in here.

I am not speaking for anyone but myself