A revolution in thought

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seraph, if you were here the whole time you would know that he came to his conclusions from observation alone. He did not form a hypothesis, and then support it through replicable experiments. You are not going to find any experiments in this book, but that alone does not negate his discovery.

So, your dad asserted that:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew.

based on observation? I gave you an observation that falsifies his claim. Where do we go from here?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a religious work whatsoever.

From the non-religious work:

Every human being is and has been obeying God’s will —
Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those
who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going
to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must
come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence
not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later
it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man’s
will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are
compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was
an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the
sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don’t roast or
freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to
fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains
developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly
when I did?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a very important question and I think if we can get past this point in our understanding, it will be easier sailing from here on in. It goes back to the way conscience works. Conscience needs a way to justify hurting anyone who doesn't want to be hurt. That's what the role of conscience is. Now let's suppose you are doing something to gain at someone else's expense, then you are striking a first blow. In a situation like this your conscience needs to know that you would be blamed by the authorities, or others, if they knew what you were doing. You therefore are willing to pay the price to get what you want.

Suppose that my conscience is satisfied by my getting what I want despite the fact that getting what I want entails causing someone harm. In such a case the price I am willing to pay to get what I want is the harm which is done to another person. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am going to be blamed for my actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you can't rationalize your behavior to yourself is because it's not good enough for your conscience. In order for one's conscience to permit a wrongdoing, it needs to know you will be blamed by others, if you're caught. When all blame is removed, your conscience will be bothered because you can't shift to something else, or pay a price, for what you know is your responsibility. Being able to shift one's responsibility eases conscience and it allows one to lie to himself and to others. That's how conscience works.

You keep saying that this is how conscience works, but you give no evidence for the claim. I can certainly imagine rationalizing my behavior in the absence of blame from some external source. In the absence of internal blame there is no need for rationalization, but the action in question is not thereby prevented. You are operating under the assumption that one's conscience, in the absence of blame, will invariably override the desire to achieve that goal which would otherwise be blameworthy, thus rendering the pursuit of that goal antithetical to one's movement in the direction of greater satisfaction. However, you have failed to present any evidence that conscience invariably operates in this fashion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you! Finally, someone is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I suggest that you go back and read that again. I am not giving Lessans the benefit of the doubt. On the contrary, I am insisting that he show his cards.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what other evidence exists, but his observations are accurate. Conscience works in a very predictable way. Because this knowledge is unprecedented, I don't know what other studies are out there. But I'm sure if empirical testing was done, it would support his claims. If conscience didn't work this way, then we could rationalize our behavior under any condition. Additionally, if man's will was free, he could hurt people regardless of being blamed or not blamed, but it's impossible because man is compelled move in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it will give him no satisfaction whatsoever to hurt people under the conditions just described.

You say that you don't know what other evidence exists. That implies that some sort of evidence has been presented. Lessans' uncorroborated observations are not evidence. You claim that his observations are accurate, yet you provide no evidence in support of that claim.

You claim that conscience works in a very predictable way, but again you provide no evidence to support that claim. You argue that if conscience did not work this way, then we could rationalize our behavior under any condition, as if it had been demonstrated that there exist conditions under which we cannot rationalize our behavior. This has yet to be proven.

You argue that, under the conditions just described, it would be impossible to hurt people because doing so would not provide greater satisfaction. I take it that among "the conditions just described" is included the very predictable operation of the conscience. Since you have not proven the claim that the conscience operates in this very predictable fashion you cannot legitimately use that claim as a supporting element in a subsequent argument.

What you are doing is constructing successive arguments, each of which is predicated on prior unproven claims. The whole thing appears to be nothing but a house of cards without any foundation other than Lessans' uncorroborated observations.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by davidm

There was no moment prior to the Big Bang. Space and time began in the Big Bang, if the Big Bang happened.

Well, yeah, that would be like saying I had no knowledge of myself nor, anything else before I was born, which is true. That isn't to say it negates the entirety of existence, however, just my own. If not, I'd be denying I was ever born or, that anything ever existed prior to that, which made it possible. Which, by the way, would have to be at least as sophisticated as I am, in terms of everything of which I'm comprised or, as a composite. And, since it's not just me but, the whole shebang, it would have to at least be that sophisticated. Otherwise there would be no means of forming stars, planets and, basically everything else.

So it all began with one big flash of light or, when whomever turned on the projector.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

So, your dad asserted that:

In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this, which means that he was previously hurt and is justified to retaliate, or else he knows, absolutely and positively, that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew.

based on observation? I gave you an observation that falsifies his claim. Where do we go from here?

Could you repeat the observation?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

My post may be considered long, therefore I have emphasized the two questions that I am asking and the general point I am making. Your next post can respond to those two questions. I prefer that you respond in your own words and not through quotation from the book.

People talked about this earlier, like 30 pages ago, and asked you questions about why new criminal laws are created. I don't think that you ever really answered them, at least not to my satisfaction. 1)Why do you think new criminal laws are created?

If there is no criminal law on the point, then there is no punishment for doing the wrong thing. Therefore, you cannot believe that you will be caught, blamed, punished, and made to pay a price for doing the wrong thing. According to you, that would mean that your conscience does not perversely rest easy because it knows that it will eventually be blamed and made to pay.

It doesn't have to be only criminal law that allows you to justify an act of wrongdoing. If it is a hurt to another, even if it's not on the books, and you go ahead with it, you know that someone, even the one to be hurt, would blame you if they knew it was you who perpetrated the act. Much of the hurt to others doesn't qualify to be put on the books as a criminal act, yet it still a hurt.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If your idea were undeniably correct, then new criminal laws would not develop as new technology developed or as the idea of equal rights for all individuals became better understood. The fact that new criminal laws (and civil liabilities, for that matter) are created, would seem to support the idea that harm can exist without official punishment or sanction.

You are absolutely right. Official punishment based on the idea of human rights means that we are developing more sensitivity to what really is a hurt. Discrimination is a hurt, but it took mankind a long time to catch up, and it is still not quite there yet. But in the new world, all of these serious hurts will be recognized as such and eliminated, but not through punishment.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Even if you do not have criminal or civil liability, as new information is revealed about all sorts of topics, people discover that they are creating harm through their actions (or inactions) when their actions do not align with their values. People choose to stop eating factory-farmed meat, or animal products completely, because they learn about harms that they cannot support. If you want a human-centered version of that, people sometimes choose to build zero-barrier/universal design homes to make their homes more accessible to people with physical disabilities based on their principles rather than their personal needs. No one could blame them for building a standard home, there are no punishments or liabilities, but as some people become more aware of the harm that barriers to access create for people with disabilities, this might be a choice in accordance with their values.

I am in absolute agreement. As we develop better technologies; as we better understand the needs of people based on their physical limitations; as we learn more about the harm that could come from product waste; as we learn how to preserve our environment; as the cost to build these type homes comes down, we will be able to make it much easier for people who have these disabilities. Why wouldn't we? But we are not hurting anyone directly if we build a standard home because we are not purposely causing harm. Part of the responsibilitiy of the disabled person would be to ask the homeowner what the difficulties might be. If they really wanted the disabled person to come over, they would do what they could to make as many accomodations as possible.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

In order for your point to be undeniable, you need to explain more about how this theory works in relation to how people harm and alleviate harm in the absence of laws and liabilities today. If you do not, then I, at least, will feel that your point is incomplete.

That's what I'm trying to explain. I don't know if I will be able to convince people that the absense of laws and liabilities will increase responsibility, but I'm tring my best to do just that.

He never said blame was the cause of justification. He said blame gives a person the opportunity to come up with reasonable excuses. Why? I don't know why. Why do apples fall to the ground? I don't know why except to say it's an accurate observation.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

It used to be the case that if you raped your wife, you were not punished because marital rape was not a crime. You didn't need an excuse, you could just say "She's my wife." That was the reason there was no crime. 2) Was there no harm in marital rape cases before there were criminal statues? Does the alleged accurate observation hold in this case? Or, in other words, if you observed this scenario in the past, would you have drawn the same conclusion that Lessans did?

We all know, whether you have a legal contract or not, that it does not give anyone the right to hurt another. Rape is a serious hurt to another. It is imposing one's will onto someone else. I want to add here that the justification came from a belief that the man owned the woman and could do whatever he wanted. That will not be a factor in the new world. Marriage will take on a completely different meaning when the state does not get involved in legislating the bond between two people.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If you say there was no harm, then I pretty much think you are a despicable person. If you say there was harm, then something other than punishment/consequences is creating harm, and eliminating them will not eliminate harm, and therefore this point is not undeniable or there needs to be additional information provided in order for the point to be undeniable.

Wheww, I'm glad you don't think that he is endorsing rape. What is creating harm is the fact that the husband wants what he wants when he wants it and is using the fact that she is his wife and it is her duty to give him what he wants. This, coupled with how he was brought up, allows the husband's conscience to get off scott free.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

From the non-religious work:

Heaven to Betsy . . . never saw that coming. . . .

--J. "ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται" D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Science and mathematics are both well defined areas of study, that Lessans had to redefine them ment that he was outside the accepted definition. He did not follow accepted scientific methods and presented no math to support his claims. He was neither a scientist or a mathematician, but at best one who came up with a novel idea and didn't have the means to present it. If, instead of going to people with a flat out assersion of and undeniable truth, he had gone and asked for assistence with the proof he may have gotten some help. Einstein developed his theorys of relativity and then went to better mathematicians for help to prove his theory, he did not just stand up and say 'Here it is accept it or you're to dumb to understand it.'

It took him years to put this discovery into words. Do you think it was an easy task? He burned his first set of printed books (thousands) in the fireplace (I remember vividly) because he wasn't satisfied. He had studied and read the ideas of many philosophers who had come before him, and that is what allowed him to come up with his discovery. He didn't make this discovery without the help of others. Where in the world did you get the idea that he said, 'Here accept it or you're too dumb to understand it?'

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could you repeat the observation?

That shouldn't be difficult, but one observation which breaks the validity of any particular hypothesis is enough to dispose of it. In this observation it is clear that I killed an innocent person I never met before (no revenge factor there), that I was acting toward attaining the greatest possible satisfaction, and that I had no feeling of being blameworthy for the killing. On a broader level I did not even feel hurt for belonging to the disadvantaged and underprivileged strata of society because that would imply that others were out to hurt me. They can't be, because that in turn would imply free will, and I know there is no such thing. So, no fear of being blamed, no blaming others, no revenge, no hurt was involved in the killing of a stranger. Just a desire to maximise my satisfaction.

[davidm]

President Nixon, left, greets Symour Lessans in the Oval Office to learn about how to end all evil on earth.

When Nixon Met Lessans

In his book, the author, Symour Lessans, reproduces a letter he sent to President Nixon, seeking an Oval Office meeting to explain to Nixon how to end all evil on earth. Nixon did not respond to the letter, prompting Lessans to consider running for president against Nixon.

Fortunately, we can well imagine how such a meeting might have gone. In addition to Lessans’ book, we have the transcripts of Nixon’s tapes. I can envision the conversation proceeding about as follows (all words are actual, from Lessans’ books and from Nixon’s tapes):

Lessans: By discovering the invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before possible — our deliverance from evil.

Nixon: But, nevertheless, the point that I make is that Goddamn
it, I do not think that you glorify on public television
homosexuality. The reason you don't glorify it anymore than
you glorify, uh, uh, uh, whores. Now we all know people who have
whores and we all know that people are just, uh, do that, we all
have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but God damn it, what do
you think that does to kids? What do you think that does to 11
and 12 year old boys when they see that? Why is it that the
Scouts, the, why is it that the Boys Clubs, we were there, we
constantly had to clean up the staffs to keep the Goddamned fags
out of it. Because, not because of them, they can go out and do
anything they damn please, [unintelligible] all those kids? You
know, there's a little tendency among them all. Well by God can I
tell you it outraged me. Not for any moral reason. Most people
are outraged for moral reasons, I, it outraged me because I don't
want to see this country go that way. You know there are
countries -- You ever see what happened, you know what happened
to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates.


Lessans: To show you how confused are those who have been guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of human relation, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”

Nixon: The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality. Anti-Semitism is stronger than we think. You know, it’s unfortunate. But this has happened to the Jews. It happened in Spain, it happened in Germany, it’s happening — and now it’s going to happen in America if these people don’t start behaving.


Lessans: Unless you fully understand the mathematical relations that do completely away with all forms of hurt in sexual experience, you will not grasp why there can be no harm in young people getting married at a very early age because it is so different from the teachings of our present day, therefore you would have to disagree even though the desired end is what the moralists have been unsuccessfully trying to bring about.

Nixon: Do you know what happened to the Romes, Romans? The last six
Roman emperors were fags. The last six. Nero had a public wedding
to a boy. Yeah. And they'd [unintelligible]. You know that. You
know what happened to the Popes? It's all right that, po-po-Popes
were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries,
but, when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in, I
don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual. And
finally it had to be cleaned out. Now, that's what's happened to
Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at the
strong societies. The Russians. God damn it, they root them out,
they don't let them around at all. You know what I mean? I don't
know what they do with them. Now, we are allowing this in this
country when we show [unintelligible]. Dope? Do you think the
Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can allow, not if they
can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope,
immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies.
That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the
stuff, they're trying to destroy us.

Lessans: Knowing our partners will not blame us for letting ourselves get out of that shape that originally attracted them, we are forced to do everything we can to make their sexual life better because they will not hold us responsible for making it worse. Therefore, if a wife is in the mood for love she can no longer hold her husband responsible when it is within her power to get him hot enough to come to her. For the first time she becomes conscious that she is responsible for anything that is done to herself since she alone holds the secret that can keep their love alive. Realizing that this may require a complete transformation of herself, she also becomes conscious that this is not just for the benefit and happiness of the other partner but for her own happiness and satisfaction as well. By obeying God’s will — Thou Shall Not blame — she is prevented from hurting herself by preventing others from hurting her.


Nixon: It's a balls thing. It's a balls thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

From the non-religious work:

Where does this show this is a religious work? Now I'm confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

That shouldn't be difficult, but one observation which breaks the validity of any particular hypothesis is enough to dispose of it. In this observation it is clear that I killed an innocent person I never met before (no revenge factor there), that I was acting toward attaining the greatest possible satisfaction, and that I had no feeling of being blameworthy for the killing. On a broader level I did not even feel hurt for belonging to the disadvantaged and underprivileged strata of society because that would imply that others were out to hurt me. They can't be, because that in turn would imply free will, and I know there is no such thing. So, no fear of being blamed, no blaming others, no revenge, no hurt was involved in the killing of a stranger. Just a desire to maximise my satisfaction.

And? I'm waiting for the cliffhanger. Where is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Heaven to Betsy . . . never saw that coming. . . .

--J. "ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται" D.

Doctor X, I am actually laughing, but it really isn't funny. I knew there was a reason for your being the devil's advocate but you make Lessans look like such an idiot, I don't even know how to even respond to you. That's why I don't. Even if the entire world accepted this discovery, you would still be saying, "Where's the proof?" Tell me, "where's the proof god dam it?" The whole thing is just too ironic for me to even answser at this point. Sorry.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And? I'm waiting for the cliffhanger. Where is it?

I might dumb it down some more for you, but not tonight.

Also, one does not normally wait for cliffhangers. The waiting is traditionally focused on its resolution.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does this show this is a religious work? Now I'm confused.

I am confused by your confusion.

The author is arguing, for instance, that the reason the earth is just the right distance from the sun, is cuz God put it there. Otherwise we'd burn or freeze.

A howler of a dunder-headed argument, btw. Too bad he didn't read enough philosophy to learn about The Anthropic Principle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

President Nixon, left, greets Symour Lessans in the Oval Office to learn about how to end all evil on earth.

When Nixon Met Lessans

In his book, the author, Symour Lessans, reproduces a letter he sent to President Nixon, seeking an Oval Office meeting to explain to Nixon how to end all evil on earth. Nixon did not respond to the letter, prompting Lessans to consider running for president against Nixon.

Fortunately, we can well imagine how such a meeting might have gone. In addition to Lessans’ book, we have the transcripts of Nixon’s tapes. I can envision the conversation proceeding about as follows (all words are actual, from Lessans’ books and from Nixon’s tapes):

Lessans: By discovering the invariable laws that inhere in the mankind system we are able, for the very first time, to predict and accomplish what was never before possible — our deliverance from evil.

Nixon: But, nevertheless, the point that I make is that Goddamn
it, I do not think that you glorify on public television
homosexuality. The reason you don't glorify it anymore than
you glorify, uh, uh, uh, whores. Now we all know people who have
whores and we all know that people are just, uh, do that, we all
have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but God damn it, what do
you think that does to kids? What do you think that does to 11
and 12 year old boys when they see that? Why is it that the
Scouts, the, why is it that the Boys Clubs, we were there, we
constantly had to clean up the staffs to keep the Goddamned fags
out of it. Because, not because of them, they can go out and do
anything they damn please, [unintelligible] all those kids? You
know, there's a little tendency among them all. Well by God can I
tell you it outraged me. Not for any moral reason. Most people
are outraged for moral reasons, I, it outraged me because I don't
want to see this country go that way. You know there are
countries -- You ever see what happened, you know what happened
to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was
a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates.


Lessans: To show you how confused are those who have been guiding us, a rabbi was told that the author of the book “Decline and Fall of All Evil” has the permanent solution to every problem of human relation, and he replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”

Nixon: The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality. Anti-Semitism is stronger than we think. You know, it’s unfortunate. But this has happened to the Jews. It happened in Spain, it happened in Germany, it’s happening — and now it’s going to happen in America if these people don’t start behaving.


Lessans: Unless you fully understand the mathematical relations that do completely away with all forms of hurt in sexual experience, you will not grasp why there can be no harm in young people getting married at a very early age because it is so different from the teachings of our present day, therefore you would have to disagree even though the desired end is what the moralists have been unsuccessfully trying to bring about.

Nixon: Do you know what happened to the Romes, Romans? The last six
Roman emperors were fags. The last six. Nero had a public wedding
to a boy. Yeah. And they'd [unintelligible]. You know that. You
know what happened to the Popes? It's all right that, po-po-Popes
were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries,
but, when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in, I
don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual. And
finally it had to be cleaned out. Now, that's what's happened to
Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at the
strong societies. The Russians. God damn it, they root them out,
they don't let them around at all. You know what I mean? I don't
know what they do with them. Now, we are allowing this in this
country when we show [unintelligible]. Dope? Do you think the
Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can allow, not if they
can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope,
immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies.
That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the
stuff, they're trying to destroy us.

Lessans: Knowing our partners will not blame us for letting ourselves get out of that shape that originally attracted them, we are forced to do everything we can to make their sexual life better because they will not hold us responsible for making it worse. Therefore, if a wife is in the mood for love she can no longer hold her husband responsible when it is within her power to get him hot enough to come to her. For the first time she becomes conscious that she is responsible for anything that is done to herself since she alone holds the secret that can keep their love alive. Realizing that this may require a complete transformation of herself, she also becomes conscious that this is not just for the benefit and happiness of the other partner but for her own happiness and satisfaction as well. By obeying God’s will — Thou Shall Not blame — she is prevented from hurting herself by preventing others from hurting her.


Nixon: It's a balls thing. It's a balls thing.

I'm not going to be goofed on. All I needed to hear is the last sentence, and unfortunately our conversation has to end. For you to say, "It's a balls thing. It's a balls thing." and expect some kind of retort is absurd. You are out the door in your logic. To put it bluntly David, my time is limited, and I'm not going to waste on you.

[davidm]

Like all religious zealots, you have no sense of humor, either.

The phrase was spoken by Nixon, idiot. See: Nixon transcripts.

[davidm]

From the "non-religious book."

The author’s third discovery asks this question: With the
Earth billions of years old, and with trillions upon trillions
of babies coming into the world since time immemorial,
doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable
phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive
at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will
make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding
your own death. This chapter is available in book format only.

Ok, folks, shell out your $39.95 at the Web site where peacegirl is hawking this tripe to the rubes, and you too can learn about God's plan for YOU!

[davidm]

BTW, the author is also twice wrong in the above passage. There have not been "trillions and trillions" of people on earth. But more impressively, he misunderstands probability theory completely.

What are the chances of you living right now, during this infinitesimal fraction of time? Well, given that "you" could not have lived at any other time, and still be you, the chances are 1:1 -- unity! -- of you living at this particular infinitesimal fraction of time! No mystery there!

Another question would be, what are the odds of you coming into being at all? Given all the twists and turns of contingent history, the odds of you being born at all are exceedingly remote, granted. Yet here you are. This is because exceedingly improbable events happen all the time. Given a fair lottery with one billion draws, for instance, the odds of any particular person winning are one in a billion. But the odds that someone will will are 100 percent. Thus in such a lottery, it is guaranteed that someone will beat 1 in a billion odds.

Oh, and the author also seems to think that Will Durant was some major 20th century philosopher whose arguments need to be addressed. But, he wasn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

From the "non-religious book."

Ok, folks, shell out your $39.95 at the Web site where peacegirl is hawking this tripe to the rubes, and you too can learn about God's plan for YOU!

David, trust me, the last thing I would ever want you to do is shell out $39.95.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Like all religious zealots, you have no sense of humor, either.

The phrase was spoken by Nixon, idiot. See: Nixon transcripts.

Hey, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Anyone who calls me an idiot is an idiot. Goodbye David.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, trust me, the last thing I would ever want you to do is shell out $39.95.

Care to answer the points made with respect to the anthropic principle and probability theory that discredit the passages from Lessans quoted above? And did you finally notice that the "balls" quote and everything else in the parody was actually spoken by Richard Nixon, not me?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Anyone who calls me an idiot is an idiot. Goodbye David.

Buh-bye!

[Vivisectus]

It IS a religious work - it demands that you accept certain things on faith, without evidence. One thing you will have to take on faith alone is that blame is a condition for justification.

Also it proclaims that it is a description of God's Plan.

[davidm]

OK! In the Golden Age to come, the girls will be in the kitchen …

If mother’s domain is to prepare the meals (and in most cases it
will be), her desire must be considered as well. She is not running a
restaurant and cannot be expected to cook an entire menu each and
every night, but at the same time she can no longer blame the
children for not eating what she cooks, therefore, she is given no
alternative but to prepare everything in such a tasty manner that her
entire family looks forward to eating at every meal because she can
blame no one anymore if they don’t eat. Because it is impossible for
her to judge that certain foods have greater value than others where
another body is concerned unless science has established mathematical
facts, she will be compelled to arrange a diversified variety over an
entire week or two weeks so that her children and husband will look
forward to eating certain meals on certain days.

AND the girls will put out right away!

If a
boy sees a girl sitting at a bar that appeals to him very much, and
assuming she feels the same way toward him, she would automatically
be his fiancée if she accepts his offer. No games will be played,
therefore when she accepts his proposal they will immediately begin
kissing and petting after a very brief acquaintance.

I imagine the gals will be barefoot and pregnant, too.