A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have asked about that before. You have a dismal track record of getting anyone to accept Lessans ideas, and yet you insist that if somehow top scientists endorse these ideas the rest of the world would follow. Do you think Kim Yong Un, Vladimir Putin, or Bashar al-Assad give a shit what "top scientists" think? Even if you were able to get a scientific endorsement, what makes you think all world leaders would jump on board?

These are hurdles that must be overcome, but if the leaders see the benefit to them, it won't be as hard as you think. Already, changes are taking place in these countries so that by the time this transition takes place, the gap between the free and unfree nations of the world won't be so wide. You may be interested in Sam Harris' new book. I haven't read it yet.

Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue - Kindle edition by Sam Harris. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you managed to get both scientists and some world leaders, how would you convince ISIS, the Taliban, Mai-Mai, or any other rebel group (or freedom fighters depending on your POV) to dump their ideologies?

Again, you are being myopic. This obviously is a challenge, but you have no idea what these people will accept if the majority of the world confirms that this discovery is genuine. Once the Great Transition begins, who would want to be left out when the pros outweigh the cons?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just from a practicality standpoint global acceptance is going to be your major mile high hurdle, your arguing about it on tiny discussion forums is certainly not going to make an impact.

What a defeatest attitude you have. If I adopted your attitude, I wouldn't do anything. I would have already given up. I will continue to put one foot in front of the other. Only God knows where it will lead. I trust that my efforts, no matter how small they appear to others, will eventually make an impact in ways that we could never anticipate.

[LadyShea]

I have a pragmatic attitude, not defeatist.

If I were trying to get information out to the whole world, I would have spent the last decade and my money having it translated to the most spoken languages on Earth, rather than worrying about margins on a manuscript you eventually dumped in favor of an eBook...which I recommended you do like 4 years ago.

Why did you change your mind about Amazon? You were adamantly against it for a long time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What a defeatest attitude you have. If I adopted your attitude, I wouldn't do anything.

Yes, you're certainly a model of productivity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would have already given up.

Like you've given up trying to make sense of efferent vision.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to pay $4.95 for the book. It's right there in Chapter Two.

GdB, I have a copy of the book in pdf. If you're interested let me know and I'll email it to you.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I adopted your attitude, I wouldn't do anything.

Squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision isn't doing something; it's doing nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing. It's counterproductive. In thirteen years of squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision, you've garnered exactly zero adherents. Moreover, you and your father are viewed as laughingstocks at ever website you've ever haunted.

That's some high-quality work right there! Thank goodness for taxpayer-funded programs, eh? You'd starve to death if you had to rely on private sector employment.

Someone help me out here -- what's that word they use to describe doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Someone help me out here -- what's that word they use to describe doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

- Insanity. -

[thedoc]

By that definition, most of the worlds population is quite insane.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where have I disagreed that the Scandinavians are doing a better job?

Nowhere. But that is not the point. You are terrible in following what discussions are about.

You said that the examples you gave yourself (which I also find fine examples of Swedish quality of life) are in line with the principles of Lessans' book. Then I reacted that we do not need Lessans' book to base reasonable ideas about justice upon. Nowhere I suggested you would not agree with the fact that the Scandinavians are doing a better job than USAers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They may not have felt the need, but there is so much more to be done on a global scale. This should give us a desire to understand the commonalities between Lessans' claims and what Scandinavians are doing, not to throw out the claims.

Not if the theory presented is a hopeless mess of ideas as your father's book is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe in a few years when he is more well know, you will change your tune.

He will never be well known. After you died the books will be thrown at the garbage dump.

No time now to react on your other posting. Please wait.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Nowhere. But that is not the point. You are terrible in following what discussions are about.

You said that the examples you gave yourself (which I also find fine examples of Swedish quality of life) are in line with the principles of Lessans' book. Then I reacted that we do not need Lessans' book to base reasonable ideas about justice upon.

How do you know? How do you know what Lessans is even proposing?

Originally Posted by GdB

Nowhere I suggested you would not agree with the fact that the Scandinavians are doing a better job than USAers.

I know that, but you're using this to negate that Lessans has any contribution whatsoever just because the Scandinavians are a little more progressive. Your argument that this book is devoid of value is so breathtakingly silly that it is impossible to engage in any discussion with you (which is perhaps your underlying strategy).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They may not have felt the need, but there is so much more to be done on a global scale. This should give us a desire to understand the commonalities between Lessans' claims and what Scandinavians are doing, not to throw out the claims.

Originally Posted by GdB

Not if the theory presented is a hopeless mess of ideas as your father's book is.

You are sounding like a blithering copycat who is just regurgitating the same old crap people have posted in here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe in a few years when he is more well know, you will change your tune.

Originally Posted by GdB

He will never be well known. After you died the books will be thrown at the garbage dump.

And this is coming from someone who has no idea what the book is about. Can it get more stupid than that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision isn't doing something; it's doing nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing. It's counterproductive. In thirteen years of squabbling with strangers on the Internet about efferent vision, you've garnered exactly zero adherents. Moreover, you and your father are viewed as laughingstocks at ever website you've ever haunted.

That's some high-quality work right there! Thank goodness for taxpayer-funded programs, eh? You'd starve to death if you had to rely on private sector employment.

Someone help me out here -- what's that word they use to describe doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

That's why I will be leaving here. You're right. It's counterproductive. I could care less what people think about my father in these type forums. I will find a different place to share this knowledge, and they will not think of Lessans in this way.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the of judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

GdB, I have a copy of the book in pdf. If you're interested let me know and I'll email it to you.

The ebook is updated and also includes Chapter Ten. If you have that chapter, you will save him $4.99.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have a pragmatic attitude, not defeatist.

If I were trying to get information out to the whole world, I would have spent the last decade and my money having it translated to the most spoken languages on Earth, rather than worrying about margins on a manuscript you eventually dumped in favor of an eBook...which I recommended you do like 4 years ago.

Getting the book translated would be fantastic, but I would like to get the discovery acknowledged first in the U.S; then people of other languages will be eagerly waiting for the translated version.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why did you change your mind about Amazon? You were adamantly against it for a long time.

I finally realized that ebooks are the trend. Printed books (which are sometimes cost prohibitive) are not as popular. You were right that ebooks are the way to go, but it took a lot of work with my formatter to convert it into mobi and epub using the correct guidelines. I'm glad the book is now online and will be there permanently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't know! You're the one who brought it up. I certainly don't believe in this 'just desert' thing you mention.

Well then you're ahead of the game. But that's not how the justice system operates. The term "justice was served" is the kind of retributive payback being referred to when the term "just desert" is ued.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

.

And that makes criminal justice systems similar in your opinion?

Many countries use juries as part of their legal system, which is what I was basing my opinion on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many countries use juries as part of their legal system, so that's what I was basing my opinion on.

Other countries have very different laws and sentencing guidelines, even if they are democracies and use juries.

The biggest differences are in gun laws, drug use laws, capital punishment, and whether incarceration is rehabilitative or retributive.

Look at Anders Breivik, completely unrepentant about murdering 77 people and injuring hundreds more and only sentenced to 21 years, the maximum in Norway. Now, Norway does have the option of retaining him if he continues to prove a threat to society, but 21 years is the maximum sentence on the books in their criminal justice system. He has a Playstation and an electric typewriter in his cell. Compare that to the US with executions and life sentences and overcrowded, dismal prisons and certainly no private video games.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not how the justice system operates.

There's a difference between retribution and justice in most judicial systems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

There's a difference between retribution and justice in most judicial systems.

I used the phrase "retributive justice". Retributive Justice is a matter of giving people their just deserts.

Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return. Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards.[1][2]

In ethics and law, the aphorism "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a principle that means that the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction.[3] The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world and is evident in many ancient texts. Its presence in the ancient Jewish culture is shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, and Exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." That phrasing in turn resembles the older Code of Hammurabi. Many other documents reflect this value in the world's cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and individuals.

Retributive justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I finally realized that ebooks are the trend.

How many ebooks have you sold?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How many ebooks have you sold?

I am not sure. I have to convert the format to see the results. I expect there to be a lot sold after I move on to podcasts, twitter, and blogs to get the word out.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure. I have to convert the format to see the results. I expect there to be a lot sold after I move on to podcasts, twitter, and blogs to get the word out.

Good to see you're on top of things as always.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once the Great Transition begins, who would want to be left out when the pros outweigh the cons?

And that is the sticking point, very few would want to give up their freedoms to join Lessans fantasy dictatorial world. I want no part of it, especially when you note that none of the principles have been demonstrated or proven, it's all just fantasy speculation by a man with demonstrated wild ideas of reality. I, for one, would not want to be treated by a doctor who decides for himself when he has had enough training, or a lawyer who has decided for himself that he knows enough law to set up in practice. I prefer that those who have actually been in the field, say what is required to start, and when someone is ready to set up in practice.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Getting the book translated would be fantastic, but I would like to get the discovery acknowledged first in the U.S; then people of other languages will be eagerly waiting for the translated version.

Well we all know what kind of people would be eagerly waiting to read the book, and the sale of Mopeds and tinfoil hats will go up dramatically.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the of judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

Heh. That's funny.

As if you have any idea at all regarding what science is or how it's done.


Hint: We've discussed this before. That list which follows the quote, the one which claims that the scientists on it were ridiculed and reviled by the scientific community for their "heretical" ideas? That's a pack of flat-out lies. And you've been called on that sort of thing before.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I used the phrase "retributive justice". Retributive Justice is a matter of giving people their just deserts.

Retributive justice is a theory of justice...

So there are more theories of justice that just this retributive justice theory? Gosh, who knew? Oh yeah, me - because I just told you. Do you read what you quote?