A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Breh, I never included homosexuality in the same sentence as war, crime and poverty. I never wrote that homosexuality is part of the environment, just like hatred, crime, poverty and war as if to say homosexuality is on the same par as these other things.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me say this one last time: Homosexuality is part and parcel of our environment, just like everything else is. Crime, hatred, poverty, war, are also part and parcel of our environment.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not right because he said "nothing other than light" in his 6th book.

No, you added that phrase.

That is true. We could not see our neighbors yet we could see the sun. That is why we would see the Sun turned on, but not see the person next to us for 8 minutes.

I have asked you this before -- I don't recall what stupid answer you gave, if you gave one at all.

So if god turns on the sun at noon, the light is at the eye instantly, even though it takes -- by your own admission -- eight and a half minutes for the light to reach the earth from the sun. This is logically impossible, of course. But I'm not going to ask you about that, since we've been over this ground endlessly.

My question: if the light is at the eye instantly, how can it not also be at the rest of our neighbors instantly? After all, the eye is part of the neighbor. So ... what? We would see a bunch of glowing eyes next to us, but the rest of our neighbors would be cloaked in blackness?



I mean, srsly, give it the fuck up! I'm sure you yourself must know how stupid all of this is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Everything we do IS influenced by our environment which means that the environment has a major influence on behavior. I did not intend this to mean that homosexuality is bad or is in the same category as war, crime and poverty. You're all bat crazy!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you added that phrase.

I have asked you this before -- I don't recall what stupid answer you gave, if you gave one at all.

So if god turns on the sun at noon, the light is at the eye instantly, even though it takes -- by your own admission -- eight and a half minutes for the light to reach the earth from the sun. This is logically impossible, of course. But I'm not going to ask you about that, since we've been over this ground endlessly.

It is not illogically impossible David, but think what you want.

Originally Posted by davidm

My question: if the light is at the eye instantly, how can it not also be at the rest of our neighbors instantly? After all, the eye is part of the neighbor. So ... what? We would see a bunch of glowing eyes next to us, but the rest of our neighbors would be cloaked in blackness?



I mean, srsly, give it the fuck up! I'm sure you yourself must know how stupid all of this is.

Glowing eyes? What do you mean the eye is part of the neighbor. If he was looking at the Sun when it was turned on, he would see it too, but until the light reached Earth we would not be able to see each other because light has to be at the object for it to be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

CHAPTER FIVE
PREMARITAL RELATIONS

P. 138

"let me begin by defining in a mathematical,
undeniable manner what we mean exactly by the word ‘love,’ otherwise
we will be unable to have a solid basis for communication. In actual
reality the word love symbolizes a conscious or unconscious desire in
varying degrees for a sexual relation of some kind and this is easily
proven by the fact that it is impossible for a boy and girl to be
attracted to someone no matter how physically appealing this
individual might be considered if they know in advance that this
person was born without any sexual organs which knowledge makes
them aware that this anomaly of nature is incapable of giving or
receiving sexual satisfaction."

P. 151

"Since the meaning of love before intercourse takes place is the
possibility of sexual gratification,"

Lessans certainly has an interesting take on Love.

All of a sudden we're back in the Puritan Age? All this means is that love (the eros kind) involves sexual desire which is what people want when they are looking to get married and start a family. You cannot separate love from sex in a romantic relationship. This doesn't mean you can't love other aspects of an individual and it certainly doesn't mean that you can't be married to someone without this element. People have all kinds of arrangements and they often work well. But for the majority, sexual attraction is a big part of what it means to be "in love" and the key to keeping a healthy relationship strong.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not illogically impossible David, but think what you want.

It's logically possible for light to be at the eye eight and a half minutes before it gets there? How is that logically possible?

Glowing eyes? What do you mean the eye is part of the neighbor. If he was looking at the Sun when it was turned on, he would see it too, but until the light reached Earth we would not be able to see each other because light has to be at the object for it to be seen.

You can't possibly be this stupid. It makes me wonder whether you are the longest-running troll on the Internet.

What do I mean that they eye is part of the neighbor?? You don't think your eyes are part of you? Your eyes aren't physically attached to you? How the fuck can the light be at the eyes instantly, but not at the goddamned nose, which is between the eyes, until eight and a half minutes have passed???



Christ you are insane!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Regret calling out a hateful homophobic bigot? Nope, I don't think that'll ever happen.

Translation: "My hateful homophobic bigotry lost its character as hateful homophobic bigotry because I spread it out over two sentences."

show spoiler

I am not homophobic. I treat all people with respect regardless of religion, race, nationality, or sexual preference. You're doing this just to get a rise out of me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of a sudden we're back in the Puritan Age? All this means is that love (the eros kind) involves sexual desire which is what people want when they are looking to get married and start a family. You cannot separate love from sex in a romantic relationship. This doesn't mean you can't love other aspects of an individual and it certainly doesn't mean that you can't be married to someone without this element. But for the majority, sex is a big part of what it means to be "in love" and the key to keeping a healthy relationship alive.

Lessans did not restrict "Love" as only the erotic love, but was defining All forms of love as meaning sexual gratification. Sex and the romantic love, are not the most important kind of love to most people, only to a few perverts like Lessans. I am certainly glad I do not share Lessans distorted view of love. He must have been a really good talker, which would explain his success as a salesman, and that he was able to talk your mother into bed, she certainly wasn't attracted to his looks.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not intend this to mean that homosexuality is bad or is in the same category as war, crime and poverty.

As one of those unfortunates who just cold turned gay after somebody told me I was too girly one time (or something), this is a great comfort.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not homophobic. I treat all people with respect regardless of religion, race, nationality, or sexual preference. You're doing this just to get a rise out of me.

And it worked, mostly because the truth hurts.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of a sudden we're back in the Puritan Age? All this means is that love (the eros kind) involves sexual desire which is what people want when they are looking to get married and start a family. You cannot separate love from sex in a romantic relationship. This doesn't mean you can't love other aspects of an individual and it certainly doesn't mean that you can't be married to someone without this element. People have all kinds of arrangements and they often work well. But for the majority, sexual attraction is a big part of what it means to be "in love" and the key to keeping a healthy relationship strong.

That is NOT what your idiot father said. He said that people fall in love with the SEX ORGANS of other people and that is ALL that love was. He said it would be mathematically impossible for boy to fall in love with a goil if he knew in advance the goil lacked sex organs. Your are SUCH liar!



Probably you scrubbed that part of the book by now, too, huh? Remember how you completely rewrote the passage in which Daddy Dumbass said in the New World, it would be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to sleep in the same bed? You rewrote it to say something completely different, and when we reproduced the two passages side by side for you, you insisted they meant the same thing!

If they meant the same thing (they did not), why did you rewrite it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not illogically impossible David, but think what you want.

Of course it is, Dingbat. That's why you've spent years evading my questions, and occasionally resorting to flat out lying about having answered them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's logically possible for light to be at the eye eight and a half minutes before it gets there? How is that logically possible?

You are conflating two different issues. Obviously we can't see light until it arrives, but we can see objects if the conditions are met. Only in the efferent account is this possible, but you don't see it because you don't want to see it. It's easier just to insult me.

Glowing eyes? What do you mean the eye is part of the neighbor. If he was looking at the Sun when it was turned on, he would see it too, but until the light reached Earth we would not be able to see each other because light has to be at the object for it to be seen.

Originally Posted by davidm

You can't possibly be this stupid. It makes me wonder whether you are the longest-running troll on the Internet.

What do I mean that they eye is part of the neighbor?? You don't think your eyes are part of you? Your eyes aren't physically attached to you? How the fuck can the light be at the eyes instantly, but not at the goddamned nose, which is between the eyes, until eight and a half minutes have passed???

The light would not be at my nose because it hasn't arrived at my nose. It hasn't arrived at my eyes either. I am seeing something afar because it meets the conditions of efferent sight. If I am looking at the moon on a very dark night, my neighbor wouldn't be able to see my eyes glow. WTF!!! He wouldn't be able to see me until morning light arrives.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not homophobic.

You're a liar. Your hateful homophobic words speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

As one of those unfortunates who just cold turned gay after somebody told me I was too girly one time (or something), this is a great comfort.

Until today, I didn't understand homosexuality at all. Now, thanks to peacegirl, I know that you were so flouncingly effeminate that none of the chicks you wanted to bang were willing to bang you. Naturally, you opted for the mathematical, scientific and undeniable course of banging dudes even though you really wanted to bang chicks.

I'm sure it worked exactly the same way for my gay sister, except in reverse.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Example: A boy is told that he is too feminine in his mannerisms. This could make him feel inferior in a male/female relationship so he may turn gay.

Is this an example of an "astute observation?"

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light would not be at my nose because it hasn't arrived at my nose. It hasn't arrived at my eyes either...

So how could we see if there is no light at the eyes?

Will you ever address this issue honestly?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Until today, I didn't understand homosexuality at all. Now, thanks to peacegirl, I know that you were so flouncingly effeminate that none of the chicks you wanted to bang were willing to bang you. Naturally, you opted for the mathematical, scientific and undeniable course of banging dudes even though you really wanted to bang chicks.

I'm sure it worked exactly the same way for my gay sister, except in reverse.

Yes, very likely. If you might feel inferior in an opposite-sex relationship, becoming gay is really the only option. As you know, gay people are never made to feel inferior. Because, culture.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light would not be at my nose because it hasn't arrived at my nose. It hasn't arrived at my eyes either.

Now the light isn't at the eyes, when God turns on the sun? Just about five posts up you insisted it was logically possible that the light was at the eyes before the light got to them!



For the past five years, you've been telling us that the light is at the eyes instantly even though it takes the light time to get to them. Again, you just said that a few posts up. Now -- suddenly -- the light has NOT arrived at the eyes!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That is NOT what your idiot father said. He said that people fall in love with the SEX ORGANS of other people and that is ALL that love was. He said it would be mathematically impossible for boy to fall in love with a goil if he knew in advance the goil lacked sex organs. Your are SUCH liar!



Probably you scrubbed that part of the book by now, too, huh? Remember how you completely rewrote the passage in which Daddy Dumbass said in the New World, it would be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to sleep in the same bed? You rewrote it to say something completely different, and when we reproduced the two passages side by side for you, you insisted they meant the same thing!

If they meant the same thing (they did not), why did you rewrite it?

You never understood anything related to this chapter. He was just extending the principles to show how love can grow rather than wane as time marches on. He used the term mathematically impossible, which was not wrong. I changed it because I didn't think it was necessary to use the term "mathematical" in this example, but it was not incorrect. You just don't understand the undeniable nature of these principles, which is why the expression "mathematically impossible" was appropriate. I will not continue the conversation if you keep calling my father names.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now the light isn't at the eyes, when God turns on the sun? Just about five posts up you insisted it was logically possible that the light was at the eyes before the light got to them!



For the past five years, you've been telling us that the light is at the eyes instantly even though it takes the light time to get to them. Again, you just said that a few posts up. Now -- suddenly -- the light has NOT arrived at the eyes!

She doesn't care how stupid she sounds, or how much she has to lie and contradict herself. All she cares about is claiming Daddy was right about everything, even when she knows this isn't so.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of a sudden we're back in the Puritan Age? All this means is that love (the eros kind) involves sexual desire which is what people want when they are looking to get married and start a family. You cannot separate love from sex in a romantic relationship. This doesn't mean you can't love other aspects of an individual and it certainly doesn't mean that you can't be married to someone without this element. People have all kinds of arrangements and they often work well. But for the majority, sexual attraction is a big part of what it means to be "in love" and the key to keeping a healthy relationship strong.

I didn't write this drivel, Lessans did and he indicated that every relationship was based on sex, he must have been a really depraved old man. From his writing it didn't sound like he was getting any at all, which is typical, since what you can't have becomes more and more important as time passes. It sounds like he and your mom were sleeping in separate bedrooms, not just separate beds, since sex seems to be the main focus of the book, and Lessans was trying to make his own twisted relationship seem normal by claiming that his situation was just like everyone else's.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So how could we see if there is no light at the eyes?

Will you ever address this issue honestly?

There is light at the eyes. Forget it Spacemonkey. You just don't see how it's possible. I'm sorry for that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I didn't write this drivel, Lessans did and he indicated that every relationship was based on sex, he must have been a really depraved old man. From his writing it didn't sound like he was getting any at all, which is typical, since what you can't have becomes more and more important as time passes. It sounds like he and your mom were sleeping in separate bedrooms, not just separate beds, since sex seems to be the main focus of the book, and Lessans was trying to make his own twisted relationship seem normal by claiming that his situation was just like everyone else's.

Sex is not the main focus of the book. It's a chapter in the book. And he never said that every relationship is based on sex. You are crazier than I thought. You're the one that has a dirty mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She doesn't care how stupid she sounds, or how much she has to lie and contradict herself. All she cares about is claiming Daddy was right about everything, even when she knows this isn't so.

You're still confused. Light is impinging on the retina when we see the Sun turned on, but light has to travel the 8 minutes to reach us in order for someone to see our face, which includes our eyes the last time I looked. Just forget it.