A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will be moving on when I start marketing.

LOL! Now that I do believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Not quite true, you were not banned from the site, the thread was locked and still is.

Your reception there was much the same as it was here. So how, in all honesty, can you say that this place is more welcoming that PR?

The reception there was terrible. They never asked a question; they just made fun of me. Never again. The thread is not locked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

On the contrary, her staying here is proof of the principle of greater satisfaction. If she went somewhere more congenial she would be less satisfied because she would be deprived of her regular fix of abuse and psychological oppression. Martyr complexes need to be fed in order to be sustained.

I'm glad you admit that it is abuse. I wish I could find a place that was sincerely interested and had a better bedside manner. I'd leave this place in a heartbeat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans never stated who was going to provide the funds for everyones paycheck, he just asserted that everyone would receive a wage equal to what they were receiving at the time of the begining of the 'Golden Age'.

You better go back and reread this chapter. He didn't just make an assertion. He gave an exact blueprint of how this will work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans' concepts are perfect and cannot be improved upon. Therefore, challenges to those concepts are useless and without value.

His concepts are God's, they are not his Angakuk, and they are perfect because they are not his. You, as a minister, should understand this, but it seems to have eluded you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh yeah. Lessans tells us that soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen will need to find work elsewhere in the novus ordo seclorum. Ditto cops, judges, court personnel, liability insurance company employees and anyone else whose employment is in any way blame-related.

That is very true. Obviously they will have to find work elsewhere if their jobs are no longer needed. If there is no more war, do we need soldiers? And, yes, any job that is redolent of blame will be displaced.

Once the transition gets officially launched, that is, as soon as the
leaders have become citizens by passing their examination it will be
mathematically impossible for war to continue or begin again and the
greatest transition in the history of mankind will be well on its way.
Assuming that you fully understand what it means that man’s will is
not free, the next step in our blueprint (our diagram of how it is now
possible to remove all evil from our lives) is to remove from around the
entire earth, regardless of who gets displaced, all those people who are
in any way associated with blame including the leaders and their
subordinates (remember, everything is exactly the same except for the
written test and the IBM offices); politicians, governors, senators, all
the way up to the President and his Cabinet. Everybody
notwithstanding gets displaced if their manner of earning a living is
the least bit redolent of blame. Is it humanly possible to believe that
the solution to the problem of war and crime involves the end of all
government or, to phrase it more appropriately since many aspects of
government will continue to function, the end of all authority and
control? If this is true (which is not yet proven), could the
commander in chief find any satisfaction in being denied the privilege
of making speeches as to what he is going to accomplish even though
this denial results in the very thing all the speeches in the world could
never bring about?

Is it not true that if the President truly cares
about ending all war, could he possibly desire to tell others what to do
when it can be revealed in a mathematical manner that such authority
would only result in the very war he is making efforts to prevent? If
every member of the government who is engaged in telling others what
is right and wrong should learn that the most harmonious relations
imaginable will exist on earth the moment all government comes to
an end, are these people given a choice if this is really what they want?

Because this is a very crucial point it is imperative that you completely
understand what is meant by the mathematical corollary, Thou Shall
Not Blame, so I suggest that you reread the second chapter to fully
understand why any person who judges what is right for another is
absolutely wrong (as two plus two equals five is wrong) since it strikes
the first blow and demonstrates how any judgment of another, before
something is done, is an advance accusation which offers unconscious
justification to do what is criticized by the standard imposed in the
tacit blame. If you know that you can prevent the very thing you do
not want by being a certain way, do you have a choice as to which
direction you must go for greater satisfaction? The very first thing
this book reveals in a mathematical manner is that no individual or
group of individuals can ever again desire to govern another because
it will be seen that not governing is truly better for themselves. For
this reason it is impossible for government to discover the solution
when this entails the removal of all government. This does not mean
that the politicians are responsible for what now exists, but their
removal is necessary for the cure which will come about of their own
free will.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Also, there be no laws in the new world. There will, however, be lawmakers.

You think this whole thing is so funny, don't you?

p. 196 During the transition, more and more people will be displaced
from their jobs. The manufacturers of war equipment will be out of
work, as well as those who make burglar alarms, safes, vaults, armored
cars, locks and keys. Even cash registers that are designed to check on
the honesty of cashiers will no longer be needed. Also displaced in due
time since nobody will be spending money in that direction are private
and public eyes, floor walkers, security guards, and all licensing
departments because they blame individuals for being unqualified by
refusing to give them a license. We can continue to spend in this
direction if we want to, just as a businessman can continue to hire
floor walkers, but when everyone becomes citizens of the new world
how is it possible to want to when this serves no purpose and the
money could be used to improve our standard of living? However,
the lawmakers will not be completely displaced because they will serve
a useful purpose. They will have the job of analyzing every possibility of
hurt that could occur, and make it known. Whereas before we were
controlled by the fear of punishment which allowed those who thought
they could beat the laws to attempt things without any regard to who
got hurt, we are now prevented from desiring to disobey a law that is
just because the fear of being excused for hurting others offers no
satisfaction when all the principles are understood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would need to be private schools that charge tuition and firefighters that charge for a call to a fire. If it is a poor family that can't afford to pay will they just let it burn, like the home that burned because the owner didn't pay the fee ahead of time.

The roads and bridges would be toll, as opposed to the open highway system we have now.

When our house burned the volunteer fire fighters just showed up without expecting a fee ahead of time. There were 5 companies that were called but in the end it was a total loss, I'm just glad they came and we had insurance. Basically the fire companies kept the fire from spreading to the forest around the house.

No, this would be included in the overall tax structure because these are services that everyone uses. If a person has no children in school, they would not have to pay a tax because they don't use that service. Your questions are answered in that chapter, and this system works so well because no one can get hurt. Have you forgotten already that there will be no poor people?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And when everyone has all the money they want, who will they hire to do the jobs they don't want to do because they have enough money that they don't have to do those jobs. When everyone is too wealthy to do the grunt, dirty jobs, who will do the grunt dirty jobs. What will you do when your sewer line blocks up and no plumber wants to come out and unclog it because he's rich already?

As long as there is a need and a job to fill that need, people will be available for hire. People will still need to find work thedoc. People will not get wealthy without earning that wealth. You are acting like people will be sitting around waiting for their paycheck without lifting a finger. You have a wrong impression of how the economic system will work. It's no different than in today's world except that the insecurity of losing one's job and having no support during that person's time of need will be eliminated due to the guarantee.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl and Lessans don't understand basic economics, where supply and demand are major factors. If everyone has a lot of money prices will go up to ballence things out so the buying power will be the same as it was before. During the Civil War the Confederacy proved this very nicely. They had printing presses turning out confederate bills as fast as they could because prices kept going up along with the supply of cash. At one point the Union Army approached the location of the presses and the Rebels stopped printing money, loaded the presses onto wagons and moved the whole opperation to another location where they started printing money again. While they were printing bills, prices went up, when the presses were not in opperation prices stabilized and held steady, when they startes printing again prices started going up again. Apparently suply and demand is something else that Lessans and Peacegirl don't understand.

Who is talking about printing money without the purchasing power to back it up? You could not have read this chapter thedoc, just be honest for a change.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reception there was terrible. They never asked a question; they just made fun of me. Never again. The thread is not locked.

Really? As of today, and since 18 April 2013 the thread has been closed.

Closed: Determinism and moral responsibility ( 123 … 200)
Author: halo2040
298646307Posted: 04-18-2013 10:56 AM
Author: MARTIN UK

[/COLOR][/URL]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Really? As of today, and since 18 April 2013 the thread has been closed.

Closed: Determinism and moral responsibility ( 123 … 200)
Author: halo2040
298646307Posted: 04-18-2013 10:56 AM
Author: MARTIN UK

[/COLOR][/URL]

Maybe they thread was closed, but I'm not banned from the forum. I would never go back anyway, so it's good they closed it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reception there was terrible. They never asked a question; they just made fun of me. Never again. The thread is not locked.

There were a lot of questions that you couldn't answer, just like this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe they thread was closed, but I'm not banned from the forum. I would never go back anyway, so it's good they closed it.

Since you don't post in other threads, there is no reason to bo back. You have an extremely narrow view of the world.

[ChristinaM]

Doc brings up a good point about how you never post in other threads and I think that it's a bad decision on your part. Right off the bat it says that you have no other interest in the community other than to preach to them and nothing else to contribute. TBH it's kind of rude and it sure isn't helping you in terms of how you're received. I'm still new here and it's the first forum that I've posted on in years where I didn't already know most of the people there and no one has been rude to me, never mind mean. If I say something factually incorrect or express a poorly thought out opinion someone usually points it out but they do it reasonably nicely and don't point and laugh as if I'm a complete idiot. If the people here were so horribly mean and unfriendly then I would be having just as hard of a time as you are. Maybe it would help if people got to know you a little bit before you launched into your lecture series.

[Megatron]

You know this may be the biggest thread on except the countdown from 1 million.

[ChristinaM]

I'm pretty sure that she didn't get past 3 threads with 1,000 posts each on IIDB but I was banned before she was done. GoTG was brutal for the most part when I looked at it and I didn't pay much attention to the others ones other to skim them to see if they were any different.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There were a lot of questions that you couldn't answer, just like this thread.

Think what you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Since you don't post in other threads, there is no reason to bo back. You have an extremely narrow view of the world.

You're getting more and more deluded by the minute; probably because you cannot accept that you were wrong about me all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Doc brings up a good point about how you never post in other threads and I think that it's a bad decision on your part. Right off the bat it says that you have no other interest in the community other than to preach to them and nothing else to contribute. TBH it's kind of rude and it sure isn't helping you in terms of how you're received.

I told people right from the beginning that I can't take the time to befriend everyone and to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects. It would spread me too thin, don't you understand my position at all Christina? I know I made a mistake thinking that people would be interested in this discovery. You don't have to rub it in.

Originally Posted by Christina

I'm still new here and it's the first forum that I've posted on in years where I didn't already know most of the people there and no one has been rude to me, never mind mean. If I say something factually incorrect or express a poorly thought out opinion someone usually points it out but they do it reasonably nicely and don't point and laugh as if I'm a complete idiot. If the people here were so horribly mean and unfriendly then I would be having just as hard of a time as you are.

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Maybe it would help if people got to know you a little bit before you launched into your lecture series.

If people don't know me a little better by now, talking on other threads will do me no good, in fact it could backfire. I'm not interested, but thanks for your well-meaning advice. I do appreciate your effort to help me (I believe you are being sincere), and I don't mind hearing more of your tips. This one just didn't suit me.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told people right from the beginning that I can't take the time to befriend everyone and to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects. It would spread me too thin, don't you understand my position at all Christina? I know I made a mistake thinking that people would be interested in this discovery. You don't have to rub it in.

That's your rationalization, but it's just a fabrication to justify your behavior. You wasted so much time on this thread alone, and none of your stated goals have been achieved - no one has displayed any positive interest in Lessans ideas. If you really cared about finding people who were interested, you should have left after a few days.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

It would help if you actually had a viable discovery to share, or could intellectually defend it. I can't defend any meanness I've provided in the past, but then again, I didn't know how dysfunctional you are at the time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're getting more and more deluded by the minute; probably because you cannot accept that you were wrong about me all along.

What have I posted that is wrong about you? You don't post on other threads. Your world view is dictated strictly by your fathers book. You're a grandmother, divorced, and have written a child safety book. Your research techniques are much like your fathers, - questionable and imaginative. You avoid answering questions about the book when you have no answers.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told people right from the beginning that I can't take the time to befriend everyone and to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects. It would spread me too thin, don't you understand my position at all Christina? I know I made a mistake thinking that people would be interested in this discovery. You don't have to rub it in.

Hmm. You may have a point that posting is time consuming and someone like me has all of the time in the world right now to do anything that I want with since I'm retired. However I still think that broadening your horizons and seeing how other people defend their positions might be a good learning experience for you. I was spoiled rotten in forum terms when I got to IIDB because it was easy to appear to be very smart on most regular forums without much effort but I really had to get my act together to hold my own there and know when to STFU and not interrupt the experts. It helps to know when you're out of your league and I know that this isn't fun to hear but you're way out of yours on these kind of forums when you talk to scientists and philosophers or even people with a lot of common sense.

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

You really need to get over this idea that this stuff is threatening to anyone because it isn't at all. It's just silly and not backed up with either facts or what anyone else thinks of as logic.

I do appreciate your effort to help me (I believe you are being sincere), and I don't mind hearing more of your tips. This one just didn't suit me.

I am being sincere when I try to help you but I'm pretty sure that nothing I've said has suited you so far. I'd still be wandering around trying to raise my first few hundred dollars if I had refused to take the advice of people with more experience than I had. So much is about perception and sometimes we just have to accept that others don't perceive us in the way that we'd like them to and change our style even though we don't think that we should have to. Personally I think that I'm just as competent in a tiedye as I am in a business suit but no one else seems to agree so I put on the damn suit and go get some money.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'm pretty sure that she didn't get past 3 threads with 1,000 posts each on IIDB but I was banned before she was done. GoTG was brutal for the most part when I looked at it and I didn't pay much attention to the others ones other to skim them to see if they were any different.

Why were you banned, and weren't you a moderator? Just curious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told people right from the beginning that I can't take the time to befriend everyone and to give my opinion on all kinds of subjects. It would spread me too thin, don't you understand my position at all Christina? I know I made a mistake thinking that people would be interested in this discovery. You don't have to rub it in.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

That's your rationalization, but it's just a fabrication to justify your behavior. You wasted so much time on this thread alone, and none of your stated goals have been achieved - no one has displayed any positive interest in Lessans ideas. If you really cared about finding people who were interested, you should have left after a few days.

If I knew what I know now, I would have left after a few days, but it's water under the bridge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No way. I am stating very clearly that I have a discovery, and this gets people really really angry. They are especially mean to me for this reason.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It would help if you actually had a viable discovery to share, or could intellectually defend it. I can't defend any meanness I've provided in the past, but then again, I didn't know how dysfunctional you are at the time.

Your words are empty. You never tried to understand this discovery. Your reasoning is specious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What have I posted that is wrong about you? You don't post on other threads. Your world view is dictated strictly by your fathers book. You're a grandmother, divorced, and have written a child safety book. Your research techniques are much like your fathers, - questionable and imaginative. You avoid answering questions about the book when you have no answers.

The facts aren't wrong, but the way you portray me is wrong. Completely wrong. I never avoided answering questions that I felt capable of answering. The problem stemmed from the discovery on light and sight which did not come from the field of physics. That started this roller coaster ride, and it hasn't stopped since.