A revolution in thought

[ChristinaM]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948)

I bet he would wish that he never said this because it's become a rallying cry for countless lone nuts. Sometimes they just keep laughing, Peacegirl.

[Vivisectus]

Perhaps some people laugh at a genius sometimes. But we know they laugh at Bozo the clown all the time.

[Vivisectus]

[First of all, the verdict is still not in. I will not give up on this claim just because scientists believe they have proven that images are interpreted in the brain due to light. I think it's dangerous of you to treat this claim as impossible because you are perpetuating the idea that science is infallible. I am not telling you to change your worldview. I am only asking you to keep an open mind, which you are not doing if you have to call me names.

We have been over this: the same applies to the existence of Bigfoot and the theory that the earth is flat. If you apply the same standards that you require for your idea to those ones, suddenly we have to keep our minds so incredibly open that we can never decide that any idea is implausible.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Perhaps some people laugh at a genius sometimes. But we know they laugh at Bozo the clown all the time.

I'm stealing that to go use on another forum to the one person that is even more dense than Peacegirl. She's been a chew toy for at least a decade now.

[peacegirl]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948)

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I bet he would wish that he never said this because it's become a rallying cry for countless lone nuts. Sometimes they just keep laughing, Peacegirl.

No, nuts will come in all sizes and shapes. The problem is deciphering which is which, which this thread has not done. I don't think Gandhi would have regretted what he said at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm stealing that to go use on another forum to the one person that is even more dense than Peacegirl. She's been a chew toy for at least a decade now.

A chew toy? How rude. I am asking you in all sincerity to please stop judging me by my online history. That is unfair but, of course, you want your lulz, so you will continue on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have been over this: the same applies to the existence of Bigfoot and the theory that the earth is flat. If you apply the same standards that you require for your idea to those ones, suddenly we have to keep our minds so incredibly open that we can never decide that any idea is implausible.

Yes, we've been through this before, but the comparison doesn't fly just because there are similarities. Try to make them exact, and you will believe you won, but you didn't win. You believe you won on a flimsy premise. As a result of lack of communication, we need to part ways. I have no anger toward you, but there's nothing more for me to talk to you about. We're talking at each other, not to each other, so we need to the conversation rest.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Bump

Peacegirl, this one should be fast because I only want a one-word answer - yes or no? This is kind of important to me in terms of figuring out how this all would work.

Bump again...

I'll explain chew toy if you ever give me this one-word answer that I keep asking for. Why is it so hard to answer with one word? And please spare me the "I'm so sad" bullshit. If you weren't loving this you wouldn't be doing it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948)

That's an apocryphal quote. Gandhi never said that. Once again your complete lack of vetting sources works against you

It is probably a variation and misattribution of this quote by Nicholas Klein:

Originally Posted by Klein

And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.
General Executive Board Report and Proceedings, Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (1914)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're waffleing, in your post above you implyed that every relationship would opperate according to a fixed set of rules and I pointed out that every relationship is different and "One size does not fit all" and now you are agreeing with me. So which is it? does 'human nature' mean that all relationships are the same, or is each situation unique?

This is not dependent on different relationships. The right-of-way systems still holds. If someone does not want to do something that another expects, that person has the right-of-way no matter what the circumstances. Do you get that? If you get angry at this person for not doing what you want done, YOU ARE BEING SELFISH. Yes, people will give in to keep peace, but this is not healthy. Let me repeat this for your understanding: People will become so accustomed to giving in to the other person because they've been brainwashed that they are being selfish if they don't, does not mean these principles don't work.

[Spacemonkey]

You said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

[ChristinaM]

Ha - people have been attributing that to Gandhi for so long it never occurred to me to look it up.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we've been through this before, but the comparison doesn't fly just because there are similarities. Try to make them exact, and you will believe you won, but you didn't win. You believe you won on a flimsy premise. As a result of lack of communication, we need to part ways. I have no anger toward you, but there's nothing more for me to talk to you about. We're talking at each other, not to each other, so we need to the conversation rest.

I would estimate this is the 16th time you have told me that you do not want to discuss this book with me anymore. Whenever it becomes too clear even for you that the book has more holes in it than swiss cheese, you pretend to leave, or to put people on ignore... anything to end the discussion so you can pretend it never happened. And then later on you will repeat the same old refuted nonsense again.

In order to retain your belief in this book, you require the use of a great many dishonest and dishinorable stratagems like this. I guess the chess-game mentioned in the book requires Lessans to simply kick over the board and storm off when it is clear he will lose the game

[Vivisectus]

If someone does not want to do something that another expects, that person has the right-of-way no matter what the circumstances

So if I can't be bothered to console my wife when she is going through a bereavement, then that is just A-OK?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we actually see in real time, why are people so threatened by this?

Nobody is threatened by it. We don’t see in real time. Your father was wrong. The hostility you evoke is not because anyone feels threatened by anything. It’s because your dishonesty is disgusting.

In fact, this is you projecting again, a trait you have evidenced countless numbers of times, both here and on every other message board you have frequented. Everyone understands that it is you who feels threatened by the idea that you have spent your life promoting utter nonsense, which you have. You and you alone have a personal stake in you father's claims.

Does this change technology in any way? Does this stop GPS systems from working?

Yes, it changes technology in every way. In fact, none of our technology could exist. GPS devices would certainly not work if Lessans were right. They never would have been invented. GPS devices rely on the truth of the special and general theories of relativity, which flatly contradict real-time seeing. If we saw in real time, all of our spaceflights to other worlds would have missed their targets, because, as we have repeatedly explained to you (and which was also explained to you in detail six years ago at iidb), their trajectories are calculated by taking into account the fact that the apparent location of objects in the sky, and their actual locations, are different. Under Lessans’ scheme, the apparent and real locations are the same. But, they aren’t. So Lessans was wrong.

Bouncing lasers off the moon would yield different results from what they do. First you lied and claimed that we cannot accurately time these laser reflections. But it was pointed out to you that atomic clocks are used, which can accurately tell time down to billionths of seconds. Then you claimed we couldn’t see the light pulse, but this was explained to you as well. You lied and said these experiments have not been done, but I pointed you to pages on the Web that showed they have been done since 1962, and then you dropped the topic like the weasel that you are. Finally you conceded that it takes light 2.5 seconds to make the round trip from earth to moon and back again, and that we will see the light only after that time has passed. But of course this concession means you agree that Lessans was wrong. If Lessans’ “model” were right, we’d see the light on the moon in half the time that we actually do. So Lessans was wrong, and you know it. It should be noted that this laser experiment was also explained in detail to you at iidb six years ago. In one ear and right out the other, eh, peacegirl?

All of our technology to measure the speed of light would fail. The moons of Jupiter experiment would fail, the Fizeau wheel would fail, the laser beam off the moon would fail, and on and on. In the past you have stated that these experiments are able to establish the speed of light because it is indeed finite, but you continue to maintain we see in real time. But it has been repeatedly brought to your attention that these experiments are entirely optical – that the reason they establish the speed of light is precisely because of the delay in seeing the light, and hence the delay in seeing the objects off of which the light is bounced. So these experiments prove incontrovertibly that Lessans was wrong. When you assert otherwise, you are lying.

We can go much further. As I explained to you hundreds of pages ago, if real-time seeing were true, there would be no eyes to see anything. That’s because the whole sky would be white and the temperature of the earth would be as hot as the sun. Life could not exist in such a universe.

But you prance on for page after page after page, ignoring all these iron-clad disproofs of your delusions and spewing insults at your moral and intellectual superiors.

I think it's that delayed vision has been an established fact for so long that for someone to debate it is seen as blasphemy, and it would also be an embarrassment. But there's nothing to be embarrassed about. It was an easy mistake to make, even for a seasoned scientist.

You would die of embarrasment if only you knew how ridiculous this makes you sound. It's exactly like saying the earth really is flat after all, but we think it is an oblate spheroid because it is an easy mistake to make, even for a seasoned scientists.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Ha - people have been attributing that to Gandhi for so long it never occurred to me to look it up.

I looked it up the first time I read it, because it didn't sound like Gandhi at all, to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Bump again...

I'll explain chew toy if you ever give me this one-word answer that I keep asking for. Why is it so hard to answer with one word? And please spare me the "I'm so sad" bullshit. If you weren't loving this you wouldn't be doing it.

I'm not on trial and I will answer you any way I want. If you had been more polite things may have been different, but I feel the disrespect and I'm not interested in engaging with you.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would estimate this is the 16th time you have told me that you do not want to discuss this book with me anymore. Whenever it becomes too clear even for you that the book has more holes in it than swiss cheese, you pretend to leave, or to put people on ignore... anything to end the discussion so you can pretend it never happened. And then later on you will repeat the same old refuted nonsense again.

In order to retain your belief in this book, you require the use of a great many dishonest and dishinorable stratagems like this. I guess the chess-game mentioned in the book requires Lessans to simply kick over the board and storm off when it is clear he will lose the game

In the case of peacegirl, do not attribute to dishonest guile what can be explained by mental illness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would estimate this is the 16th time you have told me that you do not want to discuss this book with me anymore. Whenever it becomes too clear even for you that the book has more holes in it than swiss cheese, you pretend to leave, or to put people on ignore... anything to end the discussion so you can pretend it never happened. And then later on you will repeat the same old refuted nonsense again.

In order to retain your belief in this book, you require the use of a great many dishonest and dishinorable stratagems like this. I guess the chess-game mentioned in the book requires Lessans to simply kick over the board and storm off when it is clear he will lose the game

It's not that there are holes in the book. There are holes in your reasoning. But after 2 years and not one bit of progress, it's not even worth it to me.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, the verdict is still not in.

Liar.

I will not give up on this claim just because it has been conclusively disproved.

Fixed it for you.

I think it's dangerous of you to treat this claim as impossible because you are perpetuating the idea that science is infallible.

Liar. You know perfectly well that that's a bald-faced lie.

I am not telling you to change your worldview.

You absolutely are; you've been insisting since Day One that people throw out reason, abandon logic, and ignore anything and everything that runs counter to Lessans' claims. You want people to ignore reason, logic, science, and reality itself -- since even reality itself must be "wrong" somehow if it contradicts Lessans -- and accept Lessans' wholly unsupported claims on faith alone. You couldn't possibly be asking for a more radical change in my worldview.

I am only asking you to keep an open mind, which you are not doing if you have to call me names.

The very last thing you want from anyone is open-mindedness. What you want and what you repeatedly demand -- as did Lessans -- is exactly the opposite, blind acceptance based on no evidence whatsoever other than Lessans' supposed authority.

I'm not calling you names. I'm pointing out that you're a liar and a hypocrite. There's a difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So if I can't be bothered to console my wife when she is going through a bereavement, then that is just A-OK?

Technically he has the right-of-way, but why would he not want to support his wife? Would this be showing his love through his actions? Most men would want to console their spouses during a difficult time like this not only because their spouses need them but because, by showing their love, they are preserving their marriage. Therefore, why would he deny her his support? But if he didn't feel well, or couldn't handle going to the funeral (I have a friend whose boyfriend literally gets sick at funerals), he would have the right-of-way not to go.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar.

Fixed it for you.

Liar. You know perfectly well that that's a bald-faced lie.

You absolutely are; you've been insisting since Day One that people throw out reason, abandon logic, and ignore anything and everything that runs counter to Lessans' claims. You want people to ignore reason, logic, science, and reality itself -- since even reality itself must be "wrong" somehow if it contradicts Lessans -- and accept Lessans' wholly unsupported claims on faith alone. You couldn't possibly be asking for a more radical change in my worldview.

The very last thing you want from anyone is open-mindedness. What you want and what you repeatedly demand -- as did Lessans -- is exactly the opposite, blind acceptance based on no evidence whatsoever other than Lessans' supposed authority.

I'm not calling you names. I'm pointing out that you're a liar and a hypocrite. There's a difference.

You are accusing me of lying and hypocricy. That's not fair. It's one thing to not agree with Lessans. It's another to be on the offensive. The last thing I want from people is blind acceptance. Why did I say all along that there needs to be more empirical testing? The videos of dogs that were offered by LadyShea did not prove anything. I am open to more testing. Why isn't that acceptable to you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did I say all along that there needs to be more empirical testing?

Yes, this "there needs to be more emprical testing" is that mantra that you come up with, and only employ, when conclusive evidence has been given to you that Lessans' claims are false. For five hundred some years we've had conclusive evidence that we see in delayed time because of the finite speed of light, and we prove it every day with all our technology and anything at all that we do that employs light and sight. The very existence of eyeglasses and telescopes, a simple visit to the eye doctor, all rule out Lessans' claims on light and sight. When these facts are pounded into your head, it's then that you fall back on your "there needs to be more emprical testing" copout. It's a copout because you can never refute, respond to, or answer in any way the substance of the empirical disproofs of your father's claims; so you respond by kicking the can down the road to some future date, which will never arrive, when "more empirical testing" will invalidate what has already been known to be true for hundreds of years.

"There needs to be more empirical testing," along with your other scuzzy little copout, "something else is going on there," are just your shorthands for saying: "I've no idea how to respond to these clear refutations of my father's work, without admitting that my father was wrong. Since I'll never admit that he was wrong, I'll lie and weasel and chisel and evade and dodge all the issues instead."

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm calling you a liar and a hypocrite because you are. For example, you specified exactly what could disprove Lessans' claims regarding sight to your own satisfaction. When it was pointed out that these conditions had already been met, your initial response was to lie and deny that you'd made any such claim. When your own words were quoted back to you, you immediately shifted the goalposts (while carefully phrasing your revised criteria such that no evidence against Lessans would be considered adequate) and compounded the lie by pretending that's what you had really meant all along.

Such dishonesty is par for the course, where you're concerned.


You're a hypocrite because you hold Lessans to entirely different standards than anyone else. Where Lessans is concerned, his say-so is sufficient. But when carefully-conducted, double-blinded, peer-reviewed experiments conclude that Lessans was mistaken, you reject them without even bothering to familiarize yourself with the methodology and results. If reaility itself conflicts with Lessans, you insist that it's reality itself that must be wrong -- somehow.


And blind acceptance is exactly what you've been demanding from Day One. You dishonestly and hypocritically claim that you want people to test Lessans' claims, but every single time people do so, you reject the results because they conflict with Lessans' claims.

You do not want people to test Lessans' claims. You want people to blindly accept them, like you have. And you don't hesitate to resort to "Lying for Lessans" in pursuit of that goal.


You are most-definitely not "open to more testing." That's the biggest lie of all. The whole "more tests must be done -- meanwhile you should accept Lessans at his word, despite the fact that every single test has proved him wrong" plea is a particularly dishonest ploy, because you've outright said that you will reject any and all experimental results which contradict Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We have been over this: the same applies to the existence of Bigfoot and the theory that the earth is flat. If you apply the same standards that you require for your idea to those ones, suddenly we have to keep our minds so incredibly open that we can never decide that any idea is implausible.

Yes, we have been over this. Each claim needs to be treated individually, based on its own merit. It may be necessary to keep your mind open to the degree that you can never decide that any idea is implausible, so that you don't lose the one claim that is true.