A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. Similarly, the probability that you'll die from cancer has increased dramatically over the past century. You know why? Because, with improved treatment and prevention of communicable diseases, more people are living long-enough to die of cancer -- instead of things like polio or measles.

Similarly, if you reduce the incidence of acute diseases, it's a statistical certainty that the relative rate of chronic diseases will increase.

That's elementary statistics. It's stuff like this that makes me think it would be a good idea to make it mandatory for people to take and pass a course in Elementary Probabiity and Statistics before they're judged eligable to hold public office.

You didn't answer my question Lone. Are you that certain of your formal logic and statistical knowledge that if you were a doctor you could guarantee to every mother that injecting her child with more and more vaccines than any previous generation has received, will not have a deleterious effect on him either in the near or far future? Be honest.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lessan's "argument" (in reality, just a tautology dressed up as an argument, but whatever) only works if "free will" is defined such that the ability to choose something other than one's preference is essential to it.

Free will as defined in the dictionary as the ability to choose from the options available what one wants or what one does not want equally. That a person is free to choose either/or. But how is that possible?

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity.

His argument is not simplistic, so you're wrong right there. Maybe there are other definitions of free will that would work just as well, but there is nothing wrong with the one he offered.

Originally Posted by Adam

The only thing "wrong" with it is that, again, is is not what anyone else means when they talk about free will. If I want to define "employment" such that squaring a circle is essential to being employed, that's my prerogative, but I shouldn't be surprised that no one is especially impressed by my argument that the US currently has a 100% unemployment rate.

Most people define free will as being able to choose without outside constraint or persuasion, but this is a superficial definition.

But this wasn't his idiosyncratic definition. This definition came right from the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you know what "equivocation" means? Lessans is clearly using "good" and "evil" in a different sense than that meant by the author of the dictionary he quotes. That's equivocation. By using different senses of the words used in the definition, he changes the definition, without admitting that he has done so.

What are you talking about? How is he using the word good and evil differently than the author of the dictionary definition?

Originally Posted by Adam

Can you cite any other source that believes that the ability to choose other than one's own preference is essential to free will? No, you cannot. You cannot do so because no one else uses that definition of "free will". This is not a "clarification". It is a completely different, completely idiosyncratic, definition.

But that's just the point. There is only one direction a person can go when comparing preferable differences, which does not give him a free choice at all. This is what you're not getting.

The definition of free will he gave is the conventional definition, but it is not useful because it does not reflect the truth, which he then goes on to clarify. He did not rely on equivocation to pretend that he has something relevant to say. That was not his style.

Originally Posted by Adam

Again, I have to ask, do you understand what "equivocation" means?

Equivocation:

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

Show me where he does this.

That's exactly right. We can only accept a conclusion if all of its premises are true. Who is arguing with that?

Originally Posted by Adam

You have repeatedly suggested it. "It is important to accept this because it does prove that man's will is not free". Unless you're just saying that is emotionally important to you that people accept this?

I don't expect you to accept anything you don't understand, but it is necessary to see the proof in order to know that his conclusions are valid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Translation: I read all of your posts in this thread. That's what "ignore" means.

Ignore means not acknowledge someone. It does not necessarily mean that I won't read their posts. Sometimes I see posts from a person before I sign in as peacegirl. That's what happened here and I was compelled to answer.

ig·nore/igˈnôr/
Verb
Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.Eg: "he ignored her question".
Fail to consider (something significant).Eg: "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

Very true.

Thanks for the dragon fighting. That was absolutely thrilling.

I am not sure where he came up with this metaphor, but that was his writing and I was not going to change it for anybody.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...it's not implausible just because it seems unrealistic...

That is practically the definition of "implausible".[/quote]

Fair enough. I should have said it's not impossible just because it seems implausible.

Implausible:

Something that's Implausible is farfetched or unlikely. If it's 3pm and you still have to study for three exams and write an essay before midnight, it’s implausible that you’ll also have time to watch a movie.
The adjective implausible breaks down into im, meaning “not,” and "plausible," meaning likely. So it simply means "not likely." Implausible ideas or stories usually get high marks for creativity, but they're just too crazy to be believable. But as philosopher Rene Descartes noted, “One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.”

implausible - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Jesus forgives our misdeeds (better word) as long as he knows we are being sincere in our effort to correct our mistakes.

It is nearly always better to use a word that means what you are trying to say rather than a word that means something else entirely. You can file that bit of advice under "Best Practices".[/quote]

Another thumbs up for Angakuk.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being histrionic or sullen or whatever adjective suits your fancy does not mean my argument in defense of the book is wrong.

Of course not and I don't recall that anyone here has claimed otherwise. Those behaviors are simply mistakes in presentation resulting from errors in judgement (and/or defects in character) on your part. They do not materially affect the merits of your arguments. However, your frequent errors of fact do constitute mistakes which undermine your arguments in defense of the book.[/quote]

No they actually don't. That would be judging my personal errors (which have nothing to do with the facts in the book) and using it as a reason to reject the book. That would be like saying I was wrong when I said you had a hamburger for dinner last night, and because of that the book cannot be true. And what do you call "frequent errors"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are we trading chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and other harmless childhood illnesses for a lifetime of chronic disease? http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hold it right there, Sparky! Referring to potentially fatal diseases such as chickenpox, measles, mumps and rubella as "harmless childhood illnesses" is so egregiously wrong that it would be irresponsible for the reader to trust anything else that author writes. That right there is the kind of mistake that undermines the value of an argument. By extension, when you cite him as an authority supporting your position you undermine your own argument as well.

I guess the entire Association of American Physicians & Surgeons is wrong as well, and we shouldn't trust them either.

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of
childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction
(say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or
uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for
universal vaccination.” — Association of American Physicians &
Surgeons

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't answer my question Lone. Are you that certain of your formal logic and statistical knowledge that if you were a doctor you could guarantee to every mother that injecting her child with more and more vaccines than any previous generation has received, will not have a deleterious effect on him either in the near or far future?

You didn't answer my question.

Can you guarantee that breathing won't cause deleterious -- even fatal -- effects?

Answer: No, you can't. Nothing is 100% guaranteed risk-free. But it's remarkably stupid and selfish to argue that you should refuse to do something because it might slightly increases the risk of harm when refusing to do so greatly increases the risk of harm to both yourself and others.

Be honest.

Coming from a chronic liar like yourself, that's rich. I've always been honest here. You, on the other hand, have been anything but.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't answer my question Lone. Are you that certain of your formal logic and statistical knowledge that if you were a doctor you could guarantee to every mother that injecting her child with more and more vaccines than any previous generation has received, will not have a deleterious effect on him either in the near or far future? Be honest.

I believe that most doctors are comfortable that far fewer children will die or have adverse reactions to the injection than will die or become sick from the disease the injection will prevent. If you want 100% certainty, try betting that the sun will rise tomorrow, otherwise there is little that is 100% certain. Perhaps what is needed is a sort of 'patch test' like they use to test for allergies. That way you could identify any child that will have a reaction to the injection. It could be administered some specified time before the injection and would indicate whether the injection was safe for that child.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]I guess the entire Association of American Physicians & Surgeons is wrong as well, and we shouldn't trust them either.

That is correct, dumbass, they are not to be trusted.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To each other.

We are talking about intrinsic value here. When we use words that stratify people into layers of value based on their physiognomies or abilities and turn them into a standards that we use to judge ourselves and others by, it is made to appear that some people have more intrinsic value than others. The truth is that there can only be personal value, and when these words are removed, that is what will remain.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. That was my whole point. Value requires a valuer, it cannot exist on its own, therefore it is always subjective.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those who cannot deal with it are those who are not part of this "think tank" if you want to call it that. There's no contradiction whatsoever LadyShea. Of course who leaves as a result of this callousness or who refrains from participating cannot be measured with any accuracy (maybe you should do a survey of people's thoughts on this), but I believe it does play a major part in the number of people who are turned off to this "free" expression.

So far we have people participating here in the thread who are afraid of disagreeing
But then those same people leave and never come back
Then we have a bunch of members who don't participate in this thread because of animosity
However everyone at can deal with animosity because we are bonded by lulz
But then again those unidentified people who can't deal aren't part of the group think

Yes, this is all contradictory, and you seem to be referring to imaginary people yet again. Remember we pretty firmly established that there are no lurkers.

So far as I can tell the "number of people who are turned off to this "free" expression" is 0

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, you actually think that pointing the finger at me gets you off the hook? I have given my reasons for why vaccinations cannot be guaranteed to be 100% safe for all children; have you been paying attention? There is no way you can accuse me of being a weasel. You may be slick, but anyone with any smarts can see through you.

Moving the goalpost, Weasel.

Why is it "faulty" to compare the exposure to novel antigens and chemicals in our every day environment to the exposure to novel antigens and chemicals found in the routine vaccination schedule?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You didn't answer my question.

Can you guarantee that breathing won't cause deleterious -- even fatal -- effects?

Answer: No, you can't. Nothing is 100% guaranteed risk-free. But it's remarkably stupid and selfish to argue that you should refuse to do something because it might slightly increases the risk of harm when refusing to do so greatly increases the risk of harm to both yourself and others.

You don't seem to understand that people will do what they believe is best for them and their families first. That's human nature. If they aren't convinced that giving their child a slew of vaccines in the first two years of life is the only way to keep their child healthy, then they won't do it. You keep talking about selfishness just because they don't want to give in to pressure for some "greater good", which is also not proven.

Be honest.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Coming from a chronic liar like yourself, that's rich. I've always been honest here. You, on the other hand, have been anything but.

Asking you to be honest was not meant to imply that you haven't been honest, which most likely prompted your response.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you know what "assertion" means?

ETA, since you edited: Can you explain the modal fallacy?

You are really late in the game Adam. I've been through this with LadyShea and Davidm more times than I want to remember.

as·ser·tion (-sûrshn)
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
as·sertion·al adj.

As far as modal fallacy goes, here is an interesting rebuttal to Schwartz's charge of modal fallacy in the free will debate.

Alanyzer: Foreknowledge, Free Will, and "The Modal Fallacy"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oy. I wrote that, per Lessans, "Thou Shalt Not Blame" is a "corollary" of the fact that people lack free will. You responded, "Yes, that's true." If you can't acknowledge that as an agreement, well ...

That isn't what I was even saying we disagree on. Never mind.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There would be no consequences to conscience operating at 100% capacity as opposed to the current 10%-30% capacity? Lessans disagrees!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The knowledge that there would be no consequences presents consequences that no one wants to ever face, which prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary in a free will environment.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Again, we can't "know" something that isn't true. According to Lessans, "Thou shalt not blame" applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. After a harm is delivered, blame and retaliation are justified. Therefore, we "know" the opposite of what you're claiming; we "know" that if we deliver a harm, there will be consequences.

In a free will society we justify retaliation because it is a normal response when we are hurt, but now that we know man's will is not free, we will find greater satisfaction not striking back. This is the two-sided equation. The person will know this in advance, which checkmates him because he cannot desire to hurt others knowing absolutely and positively that there will be no blame for his unjustified actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? There will be total freedom, but the freedom comes with responsibility.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Man-made laws or not, the freedom is chimerical. Choice is illusory, remember?

That's not the freedom I was talking about. Choice is illusory, true, but the freedom I am referring to is due to the fact that no one will ever again tell anyone what to do in their life. No more restrictions coming from man-made laws. The only restrictions will be imposed by one's own conscience, which is much more powerful.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh my. The DoI was the Continental Congress' "fuck you" letter to King George, nothing more. In addition, it's a piece of paper. Pieces of paper don't create "rights."

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of people who signed the DoI served in state and/or federal government, during which they endorsed all sorts of man-made restrictions on human activity (criminal codes and such). That being true, we can safely surmise that the signers didn't see "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" as a restriction on government authority to regulate behavior.

Well it's a fundamental right to be happy, and to pursue it. Of course it doesn't put a restriction on government authority to regulate behavior. In order for this vision to be achieved, government's role has been to protect and uphold everyone's right to happiness which requires regulation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I corrected that.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh deary deary me oh my.

I am not the one who used the term "must" to describe the two-sided equation. Your father did. The following quote, which also appeared in my last post, came straight out of the book:

Thus, your statement that "this has nothing to do with 'must'" is incorrect as a simple matter of fact.

That was at the end of the book and by that time people would know "must" means "compelled". It sounded different when you said it because I am suspicious of your motives, and you are good at twisting the meaning of things. If are you really truly interested in this book, and it's not just a fun debate for you, then I highly suggest you stop trying to find flaws and really hear me out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then please stop with the derogatory comments about Lessantonian Grand Society and the Sacred Book. You will one day regret how you put him down.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

For purposes of the present discussion, I've agreed. Beyond that, I'll post whatever I goddamn jolly well please.

Just watch what you say and we'll get along fine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it will exist.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The condition precedent is knowledge that no one would every blame us for striking a first blow. However, according to Lessans, the no-blame principle applies only before a first blow is delivered; once the blow falls, all bets are off and blame is A-OK. Thus, we know that we will be blamed in the event we strike a first blow. The condition precedent can't arise.

No, this is not what he meant. This is where you are very confused. It's no wonder you don't think it will work. What is it you didn't understand in this passage?

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

p. 85 The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking a
first blow since his will is not free — when he knows that nobody,
absolutely nothing, can compel him to hurt another this way unless
he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control — enters
a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human
relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for
which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.
Remember, it takes two to tango — each person and the rest of
mankind — therefore this discovery which prevents man from
desiringto hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance,
as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or
punished no matter what he does.

“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are
perfectly justified in striking back?”

“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is
compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”

“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another
if he doesn’t want to.”

“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is completely
beyond his control because it is now known man’s will is not free?”

“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me I must turn
the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”

“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify some
form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt you is
moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”
“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you, if I
don’t want to.”

“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge what
you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t know what gives you
greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that
should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must also
take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will
I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing
what I know you are compelled to do, since your will is not free.”

“Now I get it. Then when I fully realize that under no conditions
will you ever strike back because you must excuse what you know I am
compelled to do — when I know that I am not compelled to hurt you
unless I want to for over this I have mathematical control — I am
given no alternative but to forgo the desire to hurt you simply because,
under the new conditions, it is impossible for me to derive even the
smallest amount of satisfaction.”

“Wonderful! If each reader would understand this basic principle,
then he would be able to follow me as I extend the corollary into every
part of our lives.” [Note: It may seem like a contradiction when in
the previous dialogue I say we are not justified in striking back and at
the end of this chapter I say we are. Please understand that I am
extending the basic principle to show how this law of our nature can
prevent the first cheek from ever being struck. If our cheek has not
been struck, there is no need to strike back. If you find it confusing
as to how the basic principle prevents the desire to hurt others as a
preferable alternative, it is imperative that you reread this chapter in
order to grasp the two-sided equation, which is the very foundation of
this discovery. Until this natural law becomes a permanent condition
of the environment, we will be unable to prevent the first blow from
being struck which, in turn, gives justification to retaliate]. As we
follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an
infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and wrong while
solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the
mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when
we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of
blame which include this judging in advance of what is right and
wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from
being struck.

This corollary is not only effective by your realization
that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us,
but also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of
what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it is
impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right for
someone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to show you that under the changed conditions, you can only move in one direction because your will is not free to hurt others who have not hurt you first. This would be a first blow which cannot be justified. You cannot do it. You are checkmated.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Maybe, just maybe, everything will play out exactly like Lessans said it would. If that happens, though, it won't be for the reasons Lessans describes, which are torpedoed by the limited applicability of the no-blame corollary as discussed above.

That's because you are lacking in understanding. We live in a free will society, which justifies retaliation, but when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, then there can be no justification to strike a first blow, which then prevents the need to retaliate. You need to give this more thought before telling me this corollary is not applicable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a necessary condition to move from a free will society where blame and punishment is the cornerstone of civilization to a no blame society where no blame or punishment is the cornerstone of civilization. People have to make a commitment not to blame as a starting point. They have to hold themselves accountable to their promise that they will not blame in turn for the guarantee. You have to remember that we are talking about prevention here; not after the fact. You are assuming that hurt will still occur, and that we're going to have to turn the other cheek after you hurt us, but the advance knowledge that we will turn the other cheek because we now know that your will is not free, is the very thing that prevents your desire to strike a first blow. It's paradoxical, but this is how it works.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That certainly is an assemblage of words, but it's nonresponsive. You're merely reasserting that the contract is a necessary condition without providing any explanation of the "why" and "how" as called for in the questions.

Because there needs to be an agreement made that will be an incentive to get people to not blame. This is not an easy transition. It's a fair agreement. If it could be done without an agreement, that would be fine too. It doesn't have to be a formal contract where there will be any type of repercussion. Taking the examination and signing the agreement is to make sure they understand what is necessary for them to become citizens so this new world can become a reality. If you have a better idea, let me know. He always welcomed any ideas that could get the Golden Age launched.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true; it is efferent vision that allows us to see the object in real time because light is a condition only. It does not bring the image to us through space/time.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Surely you must see that your statement boils down to "efferent vision is true because of efferent vision," which is a 100% information-free statement.

No, it establishes that efferent vision (if proved true) does negate your contradictory remark that makes this position look untenable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oy. I wrote that, per Lessans, "Thou Shalt Not Blame" is a "corollary" of the fact that people lack free will. You responded, "Yes, that's true." If you can't acknowledge that as an agreement, well ...

That isn't what I was even saying we disagree on. Never mind.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There would be no consequences to conscience operating at 100% capacity as opposed to the current 10%-30% capacity? Lessans disagrees!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The knowledge that there would be no consequences presents consequences that no one wants to ever face, which prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary in a free will environment.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Again, we can't "know" something that isn't true. According to Lessans, "Thou shalt not blame" applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. After a harm is delivered, blame and retaliation are justified. Therefore, we "know" the opposite of what you're claiming; we "know" that if we deliver a harm, there will be consequences.

Noooo, you are not understanding. In a free will society we justify retaliation because it is a normal response when we are hurt, but when know that man's will is not free, we will find greater satisfaction not striking back, and the person will know this in advance, which checkmates him because he cannot desire to hurt others knowing positively that he is striking a first blow and they will refuse to strike back.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? There will be total freedom, but the freedom comes with responsibility.

Man-made laws or not, the freedom is chimerical. Choice is illusory, remember?[/quote]

That's not the freedom I was talking about. Choice is illusory, true, but the freedom I am referring to is due to the fact that no one will ever again tell anyone what to do in their life. No more restrictions coming from man-made laws. The only restrictions will be imposed by one's own conscience, which is much more powerful.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh my. The DoI was the Continental Congress' "fuck you" letter to King George, nothing more. In addition, it's a piece of paper. Pieces of paper don't create "rights."

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of people who signed the DoI served in state and/or federal government, during which they endorsed all sorts of man-made restrictions on human activity (criminal codes and such). That being true, we can safely surmise that the signers didn't see "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" as a restriction on government authority to regulate behavior.

Well it's a fundamental right to be happy, and to pursue it. Of course it doesn't put a restriction on government authority to regulate behavior. In order for this vision to be achieved, government's role has been to protect and uphold everyone's right to happiness which requires regulation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I corrected that.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh deary deary me oh my.

I am not the one who used the term "must" to describe the two-sided equation. Your father did. The following quote, which also appeared in my last post, came straight out of the book:

Thus, your statement that "this has nothing to do with 'must'" is incorrect as a simple matter of fact.

That was at the end of the book and by that time people would know "must" means "compelled". It sounded different when you said it because I am suspicious of your motives, and you are good at twisting the meaning of things. If are you really truly interested in this book, and it's not just a fun debate for you, then I highly suggest you stop trying to find flaws and really hear me out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then please stop with the derogatory comments about Lessantonian Grand Society and the Sacred Book. You will one day regret how you put him down.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

For purposes of the present discussion, I've agreed. Beyond that, I'll post whatever I goddamn jolly well please.

Just watch what you say and we'll get along fine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it will exist.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The condition precedent is knowledge that no one would every blame us for striking a first blow. However, according to Lessans, the no-blame principle applies only before a first blow is delivered; once the blow falls, all bets are off and blame is A-OK. Thus, we know that we will be blamed in the event we strike a first blow. The condition precedent can't arise.

No, this is not what he meant. This is where you are very confused. It's no wonder you don't think it will work. What is it you didn't understand in this passage?

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

p. 85 The knowledge that man will no longer be blamed for striking a
first blow since his will is not free — when he knows that nobody,
absolutely nothing, can compel him to hurt another this way unless
he wants to for over this he knows he has absolute control — enters
a condition or catalyst never before a permanent factor in human
relations and mathematically prevents those very acts of hurt for
which blame was previously necessary in a free will environment.
Remember, it takes two to tango — each person and the rest of
mankind — therefore this discovery which prevents man from
desiringto hurt others is only effective when he knows in advance,
as a matter of positive knowledge, that he will never be blamed or
punished no matter what he does.

“Wait a second. Will you admit that if I strike you first you are
perfectly justified in striking back?”

“Of course you are not justified in striking a person who is
compelled to do what he does by the laws of his nature.”

“But you know that an individual doesn’t have to strike another
if he doesn’t want to.”

“But if he wants to, isn’t it obvious that this desire is completely
beyond his control because it is now known man’s will is not free?”

“Are you trying to tell me that if someone strikes me I must turn
the other cheek because he couldn’t help himself?”

“That’s exactly right. How is it humanly possible to justify some
form of retaliation when you know that the person who hurt you is
moved by laws over which he has absolutely no control?”
“But I do have mathematical control over not hurting you, if I
don’t want to.”

“I don’t know that, because it is impossible for me to judge what
you can and cannot do since you are compelled to move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, and I don’t know what gives you
greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that
should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must also
take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will
I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing
what I know you are compelled to do, since your will is not free.”

“Now I get it. Then when I fully realize that under no conditions
will you ever strike back because you must excuse what you know I am
compelled to do — when I know that I am not compelled to hurt you
unless I want to for over this I have mathematical control — I am
given no alternative but to forgo the desire to hurt you simply because,
under the new conditions, it is impossible for me to derive even the
smallest amount of satisfaction.”

“Wonderful! If each reader would understand this basic principle,
then he would be able to follow me as I extend the corollary into every
part of our lives.” [Note: It may seem like a contradiction when in
the previous dialogue I say we are not justified in striking back and at
the end of this chapter I say we are. Please understand that I am
extending the basic principle to show how this law of our nature can
prevent the first cheek from ever being struck. If our cheek has not
been struck, there is no need to strike back. If you find it confusing
as to how the basic principle prevents the desire to hurt others as a
preferable alternative, it is imperative that you reread this chapter in
order to grasp the two-sided equation, which is the very foundation of
this discovery. Until this natural law becomes a permanent condition
of the environment, we will be unable to prevent the first blow from
being struck which, in turn, gives justification to retaliate]. As we
follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which will act as an
infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and wrong while
solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be obeying the
mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no choice when
we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all forms of
blame which include this judging in advance of what is right and
wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice from
being struck.

This corollary is not only effective by your realization
that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt done to us,
but also by our realization that any advance blame, this judging of
what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it is
impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right for
someone else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to show you that under the changed conditions, you can only move in one direction because your will is not free to hurt others who have not hurt you first. This would be a first blow which cannot be justified. You cannot do it. You are checkmated.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Maybe, just maybe, everything will play out exactly like Lessans said it would. If that happens, though, it won't be for the reasons Lessans describes, which are torpedoed by the limited applicability of the no-blame corollary as discussed above.

That's because you are lacking in understanding. We live in a free will society, which justifies retaliation, but when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, then there can be no justification to strike a first blow, which then prevents the need to retaliate. You need to give this more thought before telling me this corollary is not applicable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a necessary condition to move from a free will society where blame and punishment is the cornerstone of civilization to a no blame society where no blame or punishment is the cornerstone of civilization. People have to make a commitment not to blame as a starting point. They have to hold themselves accountable to their promise that they will not blame in turn for the guarantee. You have to remember that we are talking about prevention here; not after the fact. You are assuming that hurt will still occur, and that we're going to have to turn the other cheek after you hurt us, but the advance knowledge that we will turn the other cheek because we now know that your will is not free, is the very thing that prevents your desire to strike a first blow. It's paradoxical, but this is how it works.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That certainly is an assemblage of words, but it's nonresponsive. You're merely reasserting that the contract is a necessary condition without providing any explanation of the "why" and "how" as called for in the questions.

Because there needs to be an agreement made that will be an incentive to get people to not blame. This is not an easy transition. It's a fair agreement. If it could be done without an agreement, that would be fine too. It doesn't have to be a formal contract where there will be any type of repercussion. Taking the examination and signing the agreement is to make sure they understand what is necessary for them to become citizens so this new world can become a reality. If you have a better idea, let me know. He always welcomed any ideas that could get the Golden Age launched.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true; it is efferent vision that allows us to see the object in real time because light is a condition only. It does not bring the image to us through space/time.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Surely you must see that your statement boils down to "efferent vision is true because of efferent vision," which is a 100% information-free statement.

No, it establishes that efferent vision (if proved true) does negate your contradictory remark that make this position look untenable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there needs to be an agreement made that will be an incentive to get people to not blame. This is not an easy transition. It's a fair agreement. If it could be done without an agreement, that would be fine too. It doesn't have to be a formal contract where there will be any type of repercussion. Taking the examination and signing the agreement is to make sure they understand what is necessary for them to become citizens so this new world can become a reality. If you have a better idea, let me know. He always welcomed any ideas that could get the Golden Age launched.

You claim that these are undeniable laws of nature that are in force by God's will. If that is so they are in effect whether people agree with them or not. That there needs to be an incentive means that they are not natural but man made and unnatural. An incentive is a contradiction to everything else Lessans said about these laws and principles.

[thedoc]

Eliminating Evil from the world is easy, first just eliminate all laws and regulations and let people do whatever they want without characterizing it in any way. Whatever a person does is natural, and survival means killing and eating other living creatures. Evil is a description of certain activities as such by man, Stop calling it Evil, and Evil goes away.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they aren't convinced that giving their child a slew of vaccines in the first two years of life is the only way to keep their child healthy, then they won't do it. You keep talking about selfishness just because they don't want to give in to pressure for some "greater good", which is also not proven.

Not proven to be a greater good? Let me quote from Wikipedia:

In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990. Death occurs, in developed countries, in about 1 in 1,000 cases (.1%). In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare, mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%. Increased immunization has led to a 78% drop in measles deaths which made up 25% of the decline in mortality in children under five.

(Emphasis mine)

That is just measles. If people refuse to take the MMR vaccine, or any Measles vaccine, they are complicit in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people.

There is only one correct answer to the question, "Should I get my children vaccinated?"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[qu
As far as modal fallacy goes, here is an interesting rebuttal to Schwartz's charge of modal fallacy in the free will debate.[/I]

Alanyzer: Foreknowledge, Free Will, and "The Modal Fallacy"

LOL, look at peacegirl desperately floundering around on her Googoo browser, desperately hoping to cherry pick something that would discredit yet another argument that she herself does not even understand in the first place.

The blog post is, in a word, asinine. It completely misses the point. I'll explain why later.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really late in the game Adam. I've been through this with LadyShea and Davidm more times than I want to remember.

as·ser·tion (-sûrshn)
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
as·sertion·al adj.

As far as modal fallacy goes, here is an interesting rebuttal to Schwartz's charge of modal fallacy in the free will debate.

Alanyzer: Foreknowledge, Free Will, and "The Modal Fallacy"

How does that rebuttal relate or apply to the charge of Modal Fallacy made against Lessans' argument?

[davidm]

We had this discussion in some detail recently in the "Gay" thread, beginning here. See posts by myself and Clutch.

Of course, peacegirl never reads any other threads, so she would not know about this.

When asked to define "assertion," she simply Googoos up a dictionary definition, unable to define it herself. When asked to define the modal fallacy, she Googoos up an attempted refutation of Swartz's discussion of the modal fallacy as it applies to divine foreknowledge and human free will, without, notably, describing in her own words, what the fallacy is supposed to be. This is so typical of her dishonesty. But what's puzzling is, does she believe no one notices these dishonest tactics?

[LadyShea]

From that other thread

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm still having a problem with the idea that if God knows in advance which color I will chose, then I cannot choose the other.

The difference is in the modal verbs. If the word cannot is replaced with will not, then there is no problem.

Originally Posted by thedoc

To say that if I pick red, God will know, or if I change my mind and pick blue, God will know. As long as I am changing my mind there is an endless regression of back and forth and only when I finally pick a color will it be resolved, but then you will say that God knew all along. It sounds like you are saying that, by definition, God knew what I will choose.

If an omniscient God is assumed in the scenario, then yes, by definition God knew what would be chosen.

[davidm]

Exactly. It's that simple. If God knows in advance I will pick blue paint, then I will pick blue paint. It's not that I can't pick red paint. It's just that I won't. After all, I have to do, at every moment, something or other, right? What I will do is what God will foreknow.

Again, I can pick red or blue paint. I just can't pick red paint if God foreknows blue, and vice versa, in virtue of God's omniscience. The author of the blog post that peacegirl linked doesn't get this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that most doctors are comfortable that far fewer children will die or have adverse reactions to the injection than will die or become sick from the disease the injection will prevent.

Maybe he could use this as a justification in this world, but he could not use this as a justification in the new world. Can you imagine how he would feel if a child died after convincing the parents to get him the vaccine, knowing that no one was going to question him in any way, while seeing the parents suffer as a direct result of his recommendation?

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you want 100% certainty, try betting that the sun will rise tomorrow, otherwise there is little that is 100% certain. Perhaps what is needed is a sort of 'patch test' like they use to test for allergies. That way you could identify any child that will have a reaction to the injection. It could be administered some specified time before the injection and would indicate whether the injection was safe for that child.

If they can figure this out, then they can give 100% guarantees. Until then, no doctor would be able to use the justification that a few children lost in favor of the majority is okay. The most he would be able to do is give the pros and cons of the vaccine based on the latest information, but he would never tell a parent what is best because he would not want to be responsible for a child's injury or death if something should go wrong.

[LadyShea]

What of the parents that choose against vaccinations, then their child becomes sick with a vaccine preventable disease and infects the neighbors infant, that was too young to be vaccinated. Both children die. How will those parents feel in the New World knowing that their decision led to the deaths of their own child and someone else's?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Not proven to be a greater good? Let me quote from Wikipedia:

(Emphasis mine)

That is just measles. If people refuse to take the MMR vaccine, or any Measles vaccine, they are complicit in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of people.

There is only one correct answer to the question, "Should I get my children vaccinated?"

It is not proven that unvacinnated children cause other children to be at risk. If there is no chance that a child can be injured from a vaccine, most parents would not have a problem with it. The problem is that there is no guarantee. Parents are not purposely trying to be obstinate. They just want to be able to make an informed choice, which is their right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What of the parents that choose against vaccinations, then their child becomes sick witha vaccine preventable disease and infects the neighbors infant, that was too young to be vaccinated. Both children die. How will those parents feel in the New World knowing that their decision led to the deaths of their own child and someone else's?

There is a risk in either case. Again, I am not saying that vaccines are all bad. I am saying no doctor in the new world would tell a parent that it is perfectly safe; he would give the statistics and leave it up to the parent. If an infant should get infected as a result of a child that was unvaccinated, it would be just as unfortunate as a child who was vaccinated and became seriously ill or died.