A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The very first sentence demonstrates the problems. Can you spot them?

Hint: it wasn't a study

Bump

[The Lone Ranger]

Thousands of books?

Unless this "fireplace" was an industrial boiler, I should think it would take days to burn that many books in a fireplace, even pamphlet-sized books. At the very least, it'd take quite a few hours' time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since Lessans relayed that story as having happened during his childhood, you hadn't yet been born.

True. I was using that as an example only. My point was that you are setting up a situation to make his mother's actions irresponsible, and they were nothing of the sort. Maybe his mother told the doctor this was not an emergency, and maybe the doctor said there is no problem with me stopping by. After all, that is what doctors did in those days; it provided them with an income. Parents whose children were very sick called an ambulance. You are setting up a hypothetical situation to place blame on his mother's good intentions in order to try to make a laughingstock of this book. That is what this is about, nothing more.

[peacegirl]

He wanted to burn those books because he didn't want any trace of them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I gather that. This is why I called it an emotionally based, irrational decision...cool rationality doesn't tell one to destroy things with fire, only high emotion. Fire is very dramatic ad symbolic.

This decision was not emotionally laden. It was not irrational either. It's funny to me that you are now acting like some kind of psychologist who understands symbolic language and actions. And you don't even see a problem with this. Another mind blower.

His decision was rational. Maybe there were too many boxes and they were too heavy to carry to the curb. I have carried some heavy boxes filled with pamphlets, and it's not that easy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He got them in somehow. Give me a break. He burned them because he wanted them to be destroyed and never exist again.

They are delivered LadyShea. The truck drivers bring the boxes in.

He may have wanted to use the paper as fuel for a fire.We used the fireplace often.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did he burn them all at once, or leave them near the fireplace to burn over time? You stated you remember this event vividly.

I remember him vividly him sitting by the fireplace burning his pamphlets. I don't remember all of the details. I was 9 years old.

I don't remember how many books he started out with

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You claimed there were thousands and you claimed to vividly remember the event. How long did it take?

I do not remember how many of these first set of pamphlets he ordered. It certainly would have stuck in my mind if it was a long process that took days and days.

but one thing is for certain: You are too quick to judge his actions, and your motive for doing this is quite obvious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not too quick. You've told us about this event for years, remember?

You are very quick to judge his actions as being irrational. It's amazing what lengths you are going to in order to try and discredit him as being capable of making such an important discovery. None of the things have anything to do with his analytical abilities.

It was very rational. You weren't there. You weren't in his shoes. You have no idea what the circumstances were, yet you are so quick to tell me that he was not rational

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't have to have been there or walked in his shoes to understand that burning one's work due to dissatisfaction is not rational. This is the act of a histrionic person seeking to eliminate all traces of a perceived failure.

You're completely out the door LadyShea. You have gone overboard to where you are the one not being rational. You have jumped to a wrong conclusion based on a wrong premise.

I guarantee you that any well-trained psychologist would be hard pressed to come to that conclusion, because burning one's own work in one's own fireplace because one does not want one's words copied or read, is not an irrational act.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'd love to see you fulfill that guarantee.

There was nothing irrational about his behavior. It did not interfere with his family life, or his fulfillment of his duty as a father and husband. You are making up anything you can to portray him as being some kind of weirdo. He was the most level headed, stable, non histrionic of individuals you would ever want to meet. You can think whatever you want, but just know they are fabrications.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Thousands of books?

Unless this "fireplace" was an industrial boiler, I should think it would take days to burn that many books in a fireplace, even pamphlet-sized books. At the very least, it'd take quite a few hours' time.

You're right. I don't think his first order was in the thousands. His other books were, and he stored them in the cellar where many got ruined due to water damage. I tried to salvage as many as I could when the house was sold.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True. I was using that as an example only. My point was that you are setting up a situation to make his mother's actions irresponsible, and they were nothing of the sort. Maybe his mother told the doctor this was not an emergency, and maybe the doctor said there is no problem with me stopping by. After all, that is what doctors did in those days; it provided them with an income. Parents whose children were very sick called an ambulance. You are setting up a hypothetical situation to place blame on his mother's good intentions in order to try to make a laughingstock of this book. That is what this is about, nothing more.

All I said was that it was a histrionic thing to do. That it may also have been irresponsible is a side effect of those kinds of theatrics.

I cannot make the book a laughingstock. Again, maybe others don't find all of these things odd at all. I do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. I don't think his first order was in the thousands. His other books were, and he stored them in the cellar where many got ruined due to water damage. I tried to salvage as many as I could when the house was sold.

So when you relayed the story one of the dozen or so times, and included that there were thousands of books, you were exaggerating for effect?

Hmm....what was my original point again? Oh yeah, that your whole family is given to dramatics.

[LadyShea]

You used his book burning for effect, and when the effect was not what you hoped for are now trying to make it seem just a run of the mill thing people do all the time. That is post hoc justification.

Anyway, just know that you are histrionic, as was your father, and your grandmother. When you compare this discussion to crucifixions, and witch hunts, and gang rapes that's histrionic. When you describe Lessans as the "most" humble, rational, whatever man ever, and "unusually gifted", etc. that is histrionics. When you accuse us of wanting to burn his books, of resenting him, of wanting to discredit him, of trying to ruin his reputation...that's histrionics.

When Lessans sued the President, burned his books, stated that his work was undeniable, mathematical, and scientific...all histrionics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

I gave you that much. So???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You used his book burning for effect, and when the effect was not what you hoped for are now trying to make it seem just a run of the mill thing people do all the time. That is post hoc justification.

Anyway, just know that you are histrionic, as was your father, and your grandmother. When you compare this discussion to crucifixions, and witch hunts, and gang rapes that's histrionic. When you describe Lessans as the "most" humble, rational, whatever man ever, and "unusually gifted", etc. that is histrionics. When you accuse us of wanting to burn his books, of resenting him, of wanting to discredit him, of trying to ruin his reputation...that's histrionics.

When Lessans sued the President, burned his books, stated that his work was undeniable, mathematical, and scientific...all histrionics.

Lessans had an ability. You can throw out the word gifted if you want. It doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. You can easily make a case against him, which you are trying desperately to do, but your conclusions are all half baked. Go ahead. Be my guest. Keep trying to discredit him and his findings. I just hope people see the game you're playing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave you that much. So???

What are you talking about? You gave me what? You asked me to read the "study", then reminded me about it. I pointed out that there were huge problems, demonstrated in the very first sentence of the article you posted. Do you know what the problems are?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans had an ability. You can throw out the word gifted if you want. But he did have an uncanny ability of discernment, and when combined with his passion for reading history and literature, it converged in a way that allowed him to see patterns that no one else happened to see. It doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. You can easily make a case against him, which you are trying desperately to do, but the conclusions are all wrong. Go ahead. Be my guest. Keep trying to denounce him and his findings. I just hope people see the game you're playing.

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

[Vivisectus]

It is very unfortunate that this uncanny ability of discernment and towering intellect promptly abandoned him when it came to writing his own book. He promises to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that conscience works as he describes, but then promptly forgets to include the actual proof in his book...

So along with these uncanny abilities came an even more uncanny ability to commit catastrophic blunders without noticing.

Or perhaps he just burned the wrong books...

[Vivisectus]

By the way, how does a passion for reading literature help you discern "patterns"?

As for reading history, it is almost as stupid an idea as trying to find an underlying pattern to human behavior from literature as it is to try and find the same from history. Only someone who knows almost nothing about the actual academic discipline we know as history would even say such a thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All I said was that it was a histrionic thing to do. That it may also have been irresponsible is a side effect of those kinds of theatrics.

But you're wrong in this case LadyShea. It was not histrionic nor did it have anything to do with a dramatic display. It disgusts me that you keep accusing him of things that he was not involved in, nor a part of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I cannot make the book a laughingstock. Again, maybe others don't find all of these things odd at all. I do.

Yes, you can. And you are doing everything you can to do just that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, how does a passion for reading literature help you discern "patterns"?

As for reading history, it is almost as stupid an idea as trying to find an underlying pattern to human behavior from literature as it is to try and find the same from history. Only someone who knows almost nothing about the actual academic discipline we know as history would even say such a thing.

You're right Vivisectus. He could have not have made such a discovery based on what he had learned through philosophy, literature, and history. He was in the wrong field, I forgot. I should have known how smart all of you are to detect such a glaring mistake on my part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, thanks for proving my point.

I proved no point other than how you have manipulated my childhood experiences I am sorry to have shared with you to mean something completely contrary to what they actually meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your words conjured the image...even the music played in my head every time you told us about how he burned his books.

I did not conjure up any images other than sharing that he burned his first set of pamphlets. I used no adjectives to conjure up a scene that comes out of a Shakespearean tragedy (a distinguished character, classical music, dramatic language, tears, imperfect manuscripts, etc). You did. You are the one guilty of being melodramatic and playing this whole thing up for your twisted purposes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That you don't see it as melodramatic and odd is evidence that my original statement about familial histrionics is right on the money

Nope, this just shows, once again, how wrong a person can be when it comes to interpreting another person's actions based on no evidence; just a bunch of loose associations, conjectures, and presumptions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? You gave me what? You asked me to read the "study", then reminded me about it. I pointed out that there were huge problems, demonstrated in the very first sentence of the article you posted. Do you know what the problems are?

I already admitted that this was not a study; it was a survey. And how about you? You talk a good talk about how Mark Geier chemically castrated autistic males. You googled his name and with nothing other than what was rumored, you immediately joined the pro-vaccine attack on him without even understanding why he believed Lupron would help to relieve autistic symptoms in some males. Now you're in the hot seat. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Dr. Mark Geier discusses treating autistics with Lupron - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are setting up a hypothetical situation to place blame on his mother's good intentions in order to try to make a laughingstock of this book.

Trust me Peacegirl, there is nothing that anyone on this thread can do that will make your father or his book more of a laughingstock than it already is. You have done such a good job of that, that there is little left to do, but enjoy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already admitted that this was not a study; it was a survey.

No you didn't. You made exactly two posts about this particular link and in both you called it a study.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave you a different study to look at, so that you wouldn't be concentrating on these two men. Did you look at it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right Vivisectus. He could have not have made such a discovery based on what he had learned through philosophy, literature, and history. He was in the wrong field, I forgot. I should have known how smart all of you are to detect such a glaring mistake on my part.

It does not seem to stop you from repeating the mistake.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe his mother told the doctor this was not an emergency, and maybe the doctor said there is no problem with me stopping by. After all, that is what doctors did in those days; it provided them with an income. Parents whose children were very sick called an ambulance.

Yes, doctors made housecalls.

No, parents with very sick children will sometimes drive them to the hospital. Parents don't always call an ambulance, even if the child is very sick. Now you're just making stuff up to support your arguments.

[LadyShea]

You talk a good talk about how Mark Geier chemically castrated autistic males. You googled his name and with nothing other than what was rumored, you immediately joined the pro-vaccine attack on him without even understanding why he believed Lupron would help to relieve autistic symptoms in some males. Now you're in the hot seat. Don't try to weasel out of it

I am not on any hot seat. These were not rumors. Even other anti-vaxxers criticized the treatment. Lupron is far from benign, it has very serious risks to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, how does a passion for reading literature help you discern "patterns"?

As for reading history, it is almost as stupid an idea as trying to find an underlying pattern to human behavior from literature as it is to try and find the same from history. Only someone who knows almost nothing about the actual academic discipline we know as history would even say such a thing.

Literature is primarily fiction, History is written by the winners and is therefore primarily fiction. So all the 'Patterns' Lessans observed in his reading were based on fiction and were, therefore fictional. That explains a lot about the book.

I have been wondering for some time now, how could Lessans observe anything about reality through reading. Even accounts of actual events are filtered by the writer of the account. Contemporary history is also filtered by the writer, and history written later is further filtered by those who reinterpret what was written before. Anything like what Lessans claims to have discovered would be impossible to observe in the documents that are claimed to be responsible, as these accounts would only vaguely represent the motives for the actions recorded, and in many cases would be completely wrong. Much of Lessans claimed principles are concerned with the motives of why a person does a particular action.