A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

[thedoc]

I must say this would be an incredible case study for a Psychiatrist or Psychologist, I don't know of any other case that has displayed these traits to this degree. Admittedly am involved and therefore my oppinion may be suspect but I would really like to see a professional opinion here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any conclusive evidence. It's amazing how theory can become accepted as fact, and if anyone disagrees they're looked down upon.

You don't see the evidence because you refuse to look.

Scientific 'theories' are as good as fact, and if anyone disagrees the 'evidence' is considered and if compelling after verification the theory is amended or abandon in favor of a better theory. That is the way of science, not some random 'Ivory Tower' thinker claiming to know the truth because "I say so, so it must be true".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't hack you anymore. You just love making fun of me. Ignore time.

Promise ! Please verify, so I can put it on my resume.

[LadyShea]

When scientists "disagree" they point out the flaws in methodology or present new contradictory evidence, and then more tests are run and repeated and the theory can be revised or abandoned. There is no acceptance as fact based on faith alone.

[thedoc]

Are we having fun yet?

Are we there yet?

[thedoc]

HELLLLLP, Peacegirl is so dense that no-one can make her understand!

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about it. If someone becomes gay because of pressures in the environment, when the pressures are gone, then those factors won't enter into it. That's all that was meant by that. Everyone seems to love twisting what was written.

You're attacking the gays now?!

Actually the gays tend to be that way because of a combination of environment and genetic factors. It's not a good analogy. It's like chastising left handed people for being left handed, I was when I was born but I changed to being right handed for no real reason I know, peer pressure maybe, now I am ambidextrous. I was always left handed though, I can't change that but being dyslexic I had a choice because of the way my brain worked. In the same way if you were always gay you would of probably but not definitely of been gay, if you were bisexual you could of chosen, if you were straight you probably would of always been straight, but then nothing is ever that simple. I can wank with my left and right hand that's all I Know.

We're not twisting anything but you are trying to make everything about a fundamental truth you know, and that is a dangerous way to be.

Homosexual relationships have never increased or fallen in any animal species the only thing that has is societies acceptance of it. It seems according to science that some people and animals are just gay and we have to get used to it because nothing supports the idea that it is a choice purely. It seems that contrary to logic homos are good for evolution the reasons why are complicated but answers are available now in science. I think I'm stretching this analogy now so I'll stop.

[LadyShea]

See All You Can See :: Visual System, How the Eye Works :: NEI

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

HELLLLLP, Peacegirl is so dense that no-one can make her understand!

Dense no stubborn yes. I suppose its like growing up believing your family are the font of all wisdom and then finding out they lied about Santa. Bastards.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Dense no stubborn yes. I suppose its like growing up believing your family are the font of all wisdom and then finding out they lied about Santa. Bastards.

Stubborn OK, really there are so many discriptives that it boggles the mind.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Stubborn OK, really there are so many discriptives that it boggles the mind.

Stubborn? I chided peacegirl for not figuring out a long time ago what she was dealing with. What is your excuse?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about it. If someone becomes gay because of pressures in the environment, when the pressures are gone, then those factors won't enter into it. That's all that was meant by that. Everyone seems to love twisting what was written.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You're attacking the gays now?!

Nobody's attacking gays.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Actually the gays tend to be that way because of a combination of environment and genetic factors. It's not a good analogy. It's like chastising left handed people for being left handed, I was when I was born but I changed to being right handed for no real reason I know, peer pressure maybe, now I am ambidextrous. I was always left handed though, I can't change that but being dyslexic I had a choice because of the way my brain worked. In the same way if you were always gay you would of probably but not definitely of been gay, if you were bisexual you could of chosen, if you were straight you probably would of always been straight, but then nothing is ever that simple. I can wank with my left and right hand that's all I Know.

What do you mean you had a choice being dyslexic?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

We're not twisting anything but you are trying to make everything about a fundamental truth you know, and that is a dangerous way to be.

But it is a universal truth. There's very few invariable laws, or truths, that we can count on, and that's why everyone is so skeptical. The first truth is that man's will is not free.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Homosexual relationships have never increased or fallen in any animal species the only thing that has is societies acceptance of it. It seems according to science that some people and animals are just gay and we have to get used to it because nothing supports the idea that it is a choice purely. It seems that contrary to logic homos are good for evolution the reasons why are complicated but answers are available now in science. I think I'm stretching this analogy now so I'll stop.

Regardless of whether people are gay at birth, or gay because of environmental factors, the point I was making is that no one will be blamed or ridiculed for their lifestyle choices.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nobody's attacking gays.

hehe I was kidding. The gays do have enough problems though what with causing Earthquakes and generally ruining the planet for all right thinking heterosexuals. I exclude the lesbians of course because that is just hot.

What do you mean you had a choice being dyslexic?

But it is a universal truth. There's very few invariable laws, or truths, that we can count on, and that's why everyone is so skeptical. The first truth is that man's will is not free.

Regardless of whether people are gay at birth, or gay because of environmental factors, the point I was making is that no one will be blamed or ridiculed for their lifestyle choices.

No and nor should they, just like most people who have any sense don't disparrage dyslexics for being bad at spelling or spastics as they used to be known before we got politically correct, as long as they make an effort. But we do ridicule people for being creationists or just believing nonsense. It is the way it works. I will not apologise for what people choose to believe. That was the point of the analogy. Don't have to believe nonsense no matter how invested you are in it. Santa is not real, I got over it. Ok I was one of them precious and precocious little assholes who went round explaining the whole deal to credulous 7 and under year olds but that's just me. If I was wiser I would probably have let the numb nuts hold onto their treasured Christmas miracle but you don't think like that when you are young. You probably shouldn't believe in Santa when you are older either it doesn't make sense.

There are no fundamental truths, the age of reason taught us that. Stop thinking there are it's unhealthy. Do some real reading as your father did, philosophy. Start with the classics, go onto to the medieval and renaissance and end with the po mos or the existentialists. Even dualists and those who opposed them had a point well made. Life is complicated no one religion says anything about anything, science is not true, philosophy isn't true, only religion is true and cults are for idiots.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When scientists "disagree" they point out the flaws in methodology or present new contradictory evidence, and then more tests are run and repeated and the theory can be revised or abandoned. There is no acceptance as fact based on faith alone.

No, but science is based on evidence, and sometimes the evidence isn't what it's cracked up to be. His observations were spot on whether you see it or not. He demonstrated exactly why man's will is not free.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

What is your excuse?

I'm still having fun, and you?

[erimir]

See, evidence doesn't matter because evidence can be wrong!

But Daddy Lessans's astute observations can't be wrong!

Therefore sight is afferent, QED.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Stubborn? I chided peacegirl for not figuring out a long time ago what she was dealing with. What is your excuse?

If you mean me I am new. I have no idea what I am dealing with. But I have seen people take science fiction and run for 4 years with it and I kid you not.

I'm scared now, hold me. :o

Oh you never meant me. Appologies.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but science is based on evidence, and sometimes the evidence isn't what it's cracked up to be. His observations were spot on whether you see it or not. He demonstrated exactly why man's will is not free.

Evidence is spot on when it convinces the objective people it is. Evidence isn't spot on when it convinces no one or cults would just be what we accept. seriously spot on is not spot on because some guy had an epiphany no one else got. Sure religions are founded on some nut bar speaking to God, but I like to think we have grown since then, we now think scientology is shit and just about any new age nonsense is subject to enquiry because we learnt that people can be wrong. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes we're all just barking up the wrong tree. It takes common sense to notice when.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

before we got politically correct,

If I may paraphrase a friend of mine many years ago, "Politically correct, usually isn't".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

hehe I was kidding. The gays do have enough problems though what with causing Earthquakes and generally ruining the planet for all right thinking heterosexuals. I exclude the lesbians of course because that is just hot.

No and nor should they, just like most people who have any sense don't disparrage dyslexics for being bad at spelling or spastics as they used to be known before we got politically correct, as long as they make an effort. But we do ridicule people for being creationists or just believing nonsense. It is the way it works. I will not apologise for what people choose to believe. That was the point of the analogy. Don't have to believe nonsense no matter how invested you are in it. Santa is not real, I got over it. Ok I was one of them precious and precocious little assholes who went round explaining the whole deal to credulous 7 and under year olds but that's just me. If I was wiser I would probably have let the numb nuts hold onto their treasured Christmas miracle but you don't think like that when you are young. You probably shouldn't believe in Santa when you are older either it doesn't make sense.

Now you're comparing this book to Santa?

Originally Posted by Sidhe

There are no fundamental truths, the age of reason taught us that. Stop thinking there are it's unhealthy.

The world turns. That's a fundamental truth.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Do some real reading as your father did, philosophy. Start with the classics, go onto to the medieval and renaissance and end with the po mos or the existentialists. Even dualists and those who opposed them had a point well made. Life is complicated no one religion says anything about anything, science is not true, philosophy isn't true, only religion is true and cults are for idiots.

We're not talking about religion, or cults. We're talking about certain facts that are undeniable (as undeniable as 1+1=2), and I'm not backing down just because you think I'm another breed of fundie.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but science is based on evidence, and sometimes the evidence isn't what it's cracked up to be. His observations were spot on whether you see it or not. He demonstrated exactly why man's will is not free.

Scientific evidence is repeatable and verifiable and only when it passes the test is it accepted.

Lessans observations were imaginary and proved nothing.

PS Peacegirl promised that she would put me on 'Ignore', so would someone quote this so that she see's it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

See All You Can See :: Visual System, How the Eye Works :: NEI

That was too elementary LadyShea. Do you think I'm a first grader?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Evidence is spot on when it convinces the objective people it is. Evidence isn't spot on when it convinces no one or cults would just be what we accept. seriously spot on is not spot on because some guy had an epiphany no one else got. Sure religions are founded on some nut bar speaking to God, but I like to think we have grown since then, we now think scientology is shit and just about any new age nonsense is subject to enquiry because we learnt that people can be wrong. Sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes we're all just barking up the wrong tree. It takes common sense to notice when.

That's true. We need to take everything with a grain of salt. That's what I was taught. But this is different than scientology, or new age nonsense.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm still having fun, and you?

Ahhhh, so you derive fun from grouching about the same thing over and over.