I believe I have figured out what this thread is about. It is really all a game and it ought to be in the Arcade. Actually, it is two games.
The first game is called "Quest for Illumination". The goal of this game is to be the poster (there can be only one*) who gets peacegirl to quit posting in this thread by convincing her that Lessans' work is entirely without merit. The weapons which are available for penetrating peacegirl's "Shield of Invincible Ignorance" include; rational argument, empirical evidence, polite discourse, compassion and infinite patience. Penetrating the shield will allow the light of pure reason to shine upon peacegirl and this illumination will deliver her from the darkness of her ignorance and delusion.
The second game is called "Troll Destroyer - The Final Lessan". The object of this game is to be the poster (there can be only one*) who so angers and/or humiliates peacegirl that she abandons the field of battle and quits posting in this thread. The weapons which are available for peacegirl's complete and utter eradication include; rational argument, empirical evidence, vulgar language, insult, derision, sarcasm and mockery. Victory is acheived when peacegirl, flames spurting out of her ears, stalks off in a high dudgeon and never returns.
Here is where things get really cool. The two games "Quest for Illumination" and "Troll Destroyer - The Final Lessan" are really just two parts of a larger meta-game, "The Illuminators vs The Destroyers - Battle for Victory". In this game the Illuminators and the Destroyers form two opposing teams that share a common goal - the end of "Team Lessans" (aka "The Indefatigables"). Although they share a common goal they are, nevertheless, engaged in a dire conflict over how this goal is to be achieved. The Illuminators want to save and redeem the Indefatigables and the Destroyers want to crush them, brutally, horribly and utterly.
"Battle for Victory" has some unusual features. The first such feature is that players may, at anytime and however often they like, switch teams. There are, with one exception, no penalties attached to changing sides. The sole exception to this rule is that no player, at anytime or for any reason, may join the Indefatigables. The penalty for such an heinous act of betrayal is immediate banishment to The Cloaca. The term of incarceration will be set by a vote of the administrators. In the event of a tie vote, one of the administrators must eat the other one and then immediately take a second vote.
A second unusual feature is that, though there are in reality three teams in play (i.e, The Illuminators, The Destroyers & The Indefatigables) one team can never be allowed to win. This feature effectively transforms the meta-game, "The Illuminators vs The Destroyers - Battle for Victory", into the meta-meta-game, "The World vs Lessans - It Isn't Paranoia Anymore". If, in playing "The World vs Lessans - It Isn't Paranoia Anymore", the Indefatigables were (for some wholly unaccountable and unimaginable reason) to win, the Internets would implode and the world, as we know it, would come to sudden and irrevocable end. This this will happen even if it is not December 21, 2012.
As you can see, playing this game is undeniably the most important thing that you will ever do. The fate of the world depends upon how well you play!
* Although there can be only one winner, all competitors will recieve a very nice ribbon and a Certificate of Participation, suitable for framing.
How cool!!! The Indefatigables will win and shall rule the earth!!!
Bitch, you wouldn't know what to do with half of a brain. What possible use could you have for mine?
So far you've called me a cunt and a bitch. I think that's enough for one day, dont' you? I have to learn how to use the ignore button for my own protection.
it has everything to do with the ability of the brain to project onto undeniable substance, a value, that doesn't exist in reality but appears to. The brain couldn't do this if the eyes were a sense organ.
If the brain is doing the interpreting of the signals to form the image, it makes perfect sense that individuals perceive all kinds of things, and apply all manner of values to those images, that may or may not be an accurate reflection of reality. There is absolutely no need for eyes to be other than a sense organ to posit this.
If the brain was interpreting the signals, then the value being processed would be a definite part of reality. That's why there is a demarcation between those considered ugly, and those considered beautiful. And don't we see this difference with our very eyes? Of course we do, but the conditioning has already taken place. No one would think of the witch of the west as being beautiful. This all has to do with how the brain is able to photograph a picture and an inflection, and then project that value onto undeniable substance. If the brain was interpreting signals from the light and turning them into images, this phenomenon would be non-existent, but it isn't.
The features we see are real. The descriptors "beautiful" and "ugly" are subjective. Not necessarily learned, mind you, there are reasons humans might find some things more aesthetically pleasing than others instinctively, rather than because they've been taught or conditioned to. But, they are still subjective. Why do you think some people find one particular style of art, such as paintings or jewelry, beautiful while others find the same thing ugly? They are both seeing the same actual features via their eyes (by sending information about gathered light to be processed in the brain), but are making subjective judgments about its overall quality and impression.
You are missing the entire step that Lessans is describing. The descriptors 'beautiful' and 'ugly' feel subjective, but that's long after we have been conditioned. Of course there are still differences in what one person considers most beautiful, but few people would say someone considered 'ugly' is beautiful. All of these standards are caused by the brain being able to photograph and project certain values onto particular features. Until these words are removed, it is difficult to know what humans will find aesthetically pleasing. Even if the studies suggest that infants like symmetrical faces, the word 'beautiful' applied to these symmetrical faces is not an accurate symbol because it creates a standard for all of those who fall above this line; just as the word 'ugly' applied to asymmertrical faces is not an accurate symbol and creates a standard for those that fall beneath this line. This is how conditioning takes place.
It's interesting to observe that the other senses have a direct connection to incoming stimuli, therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved. You can tell me all the reasons why classical music is wonderful, but if I don't like it, your trying to convince me to like it won't do a thing. I might try to appreciate the instruments and work involved, but I can't be conditioned to like it if I don't. The same thing with food. You can tell me how great sardines are, but if I don't like them, nothing is going to change my dislike for them unless, of course, my taste for certain foods change through time.
It's interesting to observe that the other senses have a direct connection to incoming stimuli, therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved. You can tell me all the reasons why classical music is wonderful, but if I don't like it, your trying to convince me to like it won't do a thing. I might try to appreciate the instruments and work involved, but I can't be conditioned to like it if I don't. The same thing with food. You can tell me how great sardines are, but if I don't like them, nothing is going to change my dislike for them unless, of course, my taste for certain foods change through time.
This is purely nonsense. Conditioning, if it could change such things at all, would make something more subjective, not less. Everything you say here about tastes and preferences in music and food applies EXACTLY as much to visual aesthetics, i.e. "beautiful" or "ugly."
Nothing you just said even kind of supports your arguments that sight is somehow different from the other senses. Feel free to try again, or more likely ignore that and pretend that you did just support those assertions.
therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved.
This is completely wrong, and you cannot tell me that you have had children and believe this. Young children can be heavily conditioned by what they hear others saying about food. If one child says something bad about some particular food other children will automatically say they don't like it without even tasting it. Food conditioning in young children is very common and will be known by anyone who has ever been around children their own or others.
Do you realize how horrible people have been in here, to the point that I actually think they would burn me alive for the sake of 'truth and justice'?
That's idiotic.
People have been calling you names. They've been mocking your reasoning.
You know, there has been a preacher going to preach to the students at my alma mater in the busiest section of campus for decades now, always preaching the silliest stuff. For example, he often accuses passing men with long hair and women wearing pants of being homosexuals.
He often gathers a crowd of people asking him questions and mocking him. And I find his preachings very distasteful, and a reflection of points of view that actually do have some force in our society - but he's been preaching for years and he has not been strung up.
You think you're that threatening to people? You flatter yourself. Nobody here cares anywhere near enough about you to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't need, nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.
nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.
That is rich coming from someone who thinks we should read 568 pages of unsupported assertions including one about how eyes work.
LadyShea, I've already agreed that the description of the eyes and how they work is not what is being disputed. Therefore, I don't have to read what's going on, except for the mechanism of how we use the parts of the eye to see, which is different from the purported explanation.
If the brain was interpreting the signals, then the value being processed would be a definite part of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Uh no, on accounta, you know, the unique brain of an individual being involved. That's where values and perceptions come from, not from the object we are seeing.
Of course people's experiences are unique. I am not arguing that, but it doesn't change the way the brain can be conditioned to liking certain type features, and then thinking it's subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So if you and I looked at a tree with a single brown branch, while all others are green and healthy, you might see an ugly flaw, I might see a beautiful imperfection, a tree surgeon might see a disease. We are seeing the same reality, the brown branch, we are perceiving it differently.
It is true that people's perceptions about reality differ depending on their experiences, but this doesn't change the fact that the word 'beautiful' or 'ugly' placed before undeniable substance on a screen can appear real but can condition our preferences to like a certain set of features over another. In other words, our personal preferences have been adulterated.
Quote:
That's why there is a demarcation between those considered ugly, and those considered beautiful.
Ugly and beautiful are subjective values applied by the brain.
Quote:
And don't we see this difference with our very eyes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
See what difference?
See that the truth is in our eyes. We see this beauty and ugliness with our eyes, which cannot be denied because our eyes tell us so. But we don't realize that this conditioning gives the impression that our eyes see reality. And they don't.
Quote:
Of course we do, but the conditioning has already taken place. No one would think of the witch of the west as being beautiful. This all has to do with how the brain is able to photograph a picture and an inflection, and then project that value onto undeniable substance. If the brain was interpreting signals from the light and turning them into images, this phenomenon would be non-existent, but it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, you are absolutely deluded if you can't understand that the brain applies values, categories, definitions and/or emotions to everything we sense and perceive and think...that's why we are each unique, because our brains are uniquely structured.
That is not what I'm denying or what this conversation is about. The only thing Lessans is disputing is how we learn, through words that are projected onto reality (but have no corresponding accuracy), to prefer features that fit into the standard that was set beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What you are positing with your photographs and inflections is incoherent, for one thing. I know it seems perfectly clear to you, but as I said from page one, it is not clear, at all. Also, if it means what I think it might mean, it is completely unnecessary, because neuroscience perfectly explains why we perceive things subjectively.
I'm hoping to make things clear, as best as I can. Neuroscience is right (in my humble opinion because there can always be new findings), because the brain is unique to each individual when it comes to how we perceive or view objective reality. What I'm saying is that the standards that have been set cause the brain to be conditioned, therefore it is not pure, as in hearing music that is our personal preference, or taste, that is our personal preference. Because of how the brain works, sight works differently and it's not pure; it's conditioned.
I found that The Lone Ranger's essay, when printed out as a Word document, was 36 pages long.
Seymour Lessans' book is 589 pages long.
Let's be clear here. Peacegirl wants everyone to slog through 589 pages of a book written by a lunatic. But she can't even be bothered to try to read 36 pages that lay out how we see. That is, she does not even KNOW the scientific description of how we see, and she cannot even be bothered to try to find out what it is. Yet, she claims it is wrong, without even knowing what it is.
And this idiot wants people to read 589 pages of bullshit, when she can't even trouble herself to read 36 page of reality.
Folks, it's time to stick a fork in her. The best thing to do is just ignore her drivel, and let her rant on like a crazy person on a streetcorner.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said nothing was wrong about the description of the eyes. What I am saying loud and clear is that there is still a possibility that the brain is not decoding a signal from the light impulses, but is seeing objective reality using every part of the eye that has already been mapped out. You know, it's so easy to make an innocent person appear guilty in a court of law. Why do they counteract the apparent slam dunk evidence with counter-evidence that would at least cause people to question if their take on what is going on is perfectly accurate. I don't believe the explanation of how sight works in regard to the brain is absolutely airtight. Do I have a right to my opinion? Of course not, according to you, which gives me little hope because you won't even entertain the possibility that the brain may not be interpreting signals from the light that turn into images. Who is the dogmatic one here? And if you call him a lunatic one more time, I promise you it will be a long time before I answer anymore of your posts.
It's interesting to observe that the other senses have a direct connection to incoming stimuli, therefore what is pleasing to the ear or the palate is purely subjective because there is no conditioning involved. You can tell me all the reasons why classical music is wonderful, but if I don't like it, your trying to convince me to like it won't do a thing. I might try to appreciate the instruments and work involved, but I can't be conditioned to like it if I don't. The same thing with food. You can tell me how great sardines are, but if I don't like them, nothing is going to change my dislike for them unless, of course, my taste for certain foods change through time.
This is purely nonsense. Conditioning, if it could change such things at all, would make something more subjective, not less. Everything you say here about tastes and preferences in music and food applies EXACTLY as much to visual aesthetics, i.e. "beautiful" or "ugly."
Nothing you just said even kind of supports your arguments that sight is somehow different from the other senses. Feel free to try again, or more likely ignore that and pretend that you did just support those assertions.
I just described what takes place with the eyes, and how it is possible to be conditioned because of how the brain works in relation if the eyes see efferently. I don't think you are following the reasoning and are just trying to fit your beliefs about the eyes into what I'm saying. It doesn't work that way. You need to let go of your thoughts on the subject [temporarily] to even get a glimpse of what I'm talking about.
Do you realize how horrible people have been in here, to the point that I actually think they would burn me alive for the sake of 'truth and justice'?
That's idiotic.
People have been calling you names. They've been mocking your reasoning.
You know, there has been a preacher going to preach to the students at my alma mater in the busiest section of campus for decades now, always preaching the silliest stuff. For example, he often accuses passing men with long hair and women wearing pants of being homosexuals.
He often gathers a crowd of people asking him questions and mocking him. And I find his preachings very distasteful, and a reflection of points of view that actually do have some force in our society - but he's been preaching for years and he has not been strung up.
You think you're that threatening to people? You flatter yourself. Nobody here cares anywhere near enough about you to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't need, nor do I have the patience or time, to read 34 pages of how the eye works.
I think I would be strung up in the name of truth and justice because I am confronting a scientific explanation that I am saying could be mistaken. This becomes more of a threat than a preacher on a streetcorner. I'm telling them that they might be wrong, and they don't like it. It brings out their absolute hatred, and that is scary. I don't like being the target of this unbridled anger. I can now put myself in the position of anyone whose ideas were different than the mainstream, and were crucified as a result. I'm glad I didn't live in that day and age or I'd be a goner. Preachers are not threatening science, even though it's an annoyance to many because of their willful ignorance and their dogmatism. I'm afraid that those who claim to be scientific thinkers will do the same thing they accuse the preachers of doing; ignoring anything that contradicts what they believe to be true because it takes them out of their comfort zone and shakes their very foundation.
Look at this thread, and I'm guessing numerous threads in your past.
How many people have you convinced?
Because that is the measure of how much of a threat you are. So far, here, it's been a big fat ZERO.
The preacher is much more of a threat than you because there are actually people out there who agree with him. There are people who might actually be influenced to become more homophobic and sexist because of him.
You are far more benign.
btw, you are a preacher too, just not a preacher of the gospel.
What I am saying loud and clear is that there is still a possibility that the brain is not decoding a signal from the light impulses, but is seeing objective reality using every part of the eye that has already been mapped out.
No, you do not get to use quaint little phrases like "seeing objective reality" or "using the eyes as a window" or such nonsense. These phrases DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING, and can be interpreted to support any number of actual models for sight, including the one that you claim is backward. Let me ask this loud and clear: If the brain is not receiving electro-chemical impulses from the optic nerve that were generated by incoming photons and reassembling and interpreting that information as an image, that is, if sight is not afferent, WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON? What is the ACTUAL process that lets us see, according to Lessans? What actual mechanism gets information about objects around us to our brain? If you do not have such a model, or even a working hypothesis for one, then SHUT UP about the eye. Lessans, and hence you, since you dare not stray from his Divine Truth, are WRONG about it. It is that simple. You have no data, no facts, and no working model. Worse still, all the little anecdotes or school-child level explanations he gives in his book are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. You would NOT see the present day from a distant star. You would NOT see the Sun instantly if it were off and somehow turned back on. We know these things as facts, because we know that light travels at a finite speed and cannot exceed it, and that we can see NOTHING except the information contained in light, detected by our eyes and decoded by our brains. Until you have something besides Lessans' assertions that it is not so, despite centuries of accumulated data and easily-replicable tests that you could do RIGHT NOW that say otherwise, there is no reason even the most skeptical person in the world should hold out judgment on these assertions JUST IN CASE they might be correct. There is not even a reasonable explanation provided for how they COULD be correct, which would be necessary considering they violate known and demonstrable properties of not only light, but the eyes and the brain.
Perhaps we could talk about your two-sided equation instead, since ethics and behavior are less understood and you actually have some wiggle room for your pet theories. Or, we could revisit the "mathematical" puzzle that uses letters instead of numbers and doesn't have any math in it. That one's fun, because you apparently don't understand it and are treating your father's solution like an answer key.
Here's three lines from my attempt under the spoiler, if anyone cares:
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADK BEL CFO JMG NKI
AEG BDH CMK JNF OLI
As you can see, no letter is "twice with any other/same letter" which I took to mean that if A has been grouped with B, as it is in the first group, it cannot be grouped with B again. I'll keep poking at it when I have free time, puzzles are fun even though I am not good at them.
Look at this thread, and I'm guessing numerous threads in your past.
How many people have you convinced?
Because that is the measure of how much of a threat you are. So far, here, it's been a big fat ZERO.
The preacher is much more of a threat than you because there are actually people out there who agree with him. There are people who might actually be influenced to become more homophobic and sexist because of him.
You are far more benign.
btw, you are a preacher too, just not a preacher of the gospel.
I don't know what you define as preacher, but that's not what I am. I am sharing information; I'm not putting the fear of God into anyone, or using any kind of tactic other than scientific proof. I agree with you that we need people to oppose any kind of prejudice or homophobia, where they use religion as a justification to pass on these antiquated attitudes. BTW, this is not a benign discussion. No, it can't hurt anyone, but it can't help anyone either if no one listens. This knowledge has farreaching implications, if only you could see beyond your nose.
What I'm saying is that the standards that have been set cause the brain to be conditioned, therefore it is not pure, as in hearing music that is our personal preference, or taste, that is our personal preference. Because of how the brain works, sight works differently and it's not pure; it's conditioned.
But there is no such thing as a universal, constant standard of beauty, leaving us with...subjective values assigned by the individual brain.
What you call "conditioning" is actually what I already described; the brain assigning categories, feelings, definitions, and values to every piece of data input. It does this with visual images, AND it does this with smells, tastes, tactile sensations and sounds. Did you know odor is the fastest and most pronounced memory trigger?
What I am saying loud and clear is that there is still a possibility that the brain is not decoding a signal from the light impulses, but is seeing objective reality using every part of the eye that has already been mapped out.
["Kael"]No, you do not get to use quaint little phrases like "seeing objective reality" or "using the eyes as a window" or such nonsense. These phrases DO NOT MEAN ANYTHING, and can be interpreted to support any number of actual models for sight, including the one that you claim is backward. Let me ask this loud and clear: If the brain is not receiving electro-chemical impulses from the optic nerve that were generated by incoming photons and reassembling and interpreting that information as an image, that is, if sight is not afferent, WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON?
I didn't say that we are not getting electro-chemical impulses from the optic nerve. I don't have a right to say that if the optic nerve is made up of afferent fibers. I am trying to map out what could be going on using what we already know about the eyes as a guide. I am not using little phrases that are in an effort to prove my case. But if it turns out that there is another possible explanation, and Lessans turns out to be right, then the phrase 'windows of the brain', and seeing 'objective reality' make perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
What is the ACTUAL process that lets us see, according to Lessans? What actual mechanism gets information about objects around us to our brain? If you do not have such a model, or even a working hypothesis for one, then SHUT UP about the eye.
I am trying to figure out what would be a working hypothesis based on what I believe he was saying. Is that okay with you? And please don't tell me to shut up. You can ask me if we can change subjects. In other words, there's a nice way saying something, and an obnoxious way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Lessans, and hence you, since you dare not stray from his Divine Truth, are WRONG about it. It is that simple.
It is not that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
You have no data, no facts, and no working model.
I am creating one with the help of those who are well versed in the anatomy of the eye. Lone Ranger, are you there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Worse still, all the little anecdotes or school-child level explanations he gives in his book are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. You would NOT see the present day from a distant star. You would NOT see the Sun instantly if it were off and somehow turned back on. We know these things as facts, because we know that light travels at a finite speed and cannot exceed it, and that we can see NOTHING except the information contained in light, detected by our eyes and decoded by our brains. Until you have something besides Lessans' assertions that it is not so, despite centuries of accumulated data and easily-replicable tests that you could do RIGHT NOW that say otherwise, there is no reason even the most skeptical person in the world should hold out judgment on these assertions JUST IN CASE they might be correct. There is not even a reasonable explanation provided for how they COULD be correct, which would be necessary considering they violate known and demonstrable properties of not only light, but the eyes and the brain.
There are some tests that would give some supportive evidence, but not the tests that astronomers used. That's why I want to know whether a dog can recognize his master from sight alone, and this is doable. I believe I can offer an explanation that is just as plausible as the present model, because the only difference in our present model vs. Lessans' model is whether the brain is looking out through the eyes to see the external world instead of interpreting the impulses to create an image of the external world. Obviously, without the optic nerve we can see nothing, but that doesn't translate to what is happening with the brain. And if you think it does, then you're just as biased as you think I am being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Perhaps we could talk about your two-sided equation instead, since ethics and behavior are less understood and you actually have some wiggle room for your pet theories. Or, we could revisit the "mathematical" puzzle that uses letters instead of numbers and doesn't have any math in it. That one's fun, because you apparently don't understand it and are treating your father's solution like an answer key.
I don't mind going back to the two-sided equation, but I don't think people are going to take him seriously unfortunately. This whole experience is very sad because people are throwing out a real treasure trove of knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael
Here's three lines from my attempt under the spoiler, if anyone cares:
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADK BEL CFO JMG NKI
AEG BDH CMK JNF OLI
As you can see, no letter is "twice with any other/same letter" which I took to mean that if A has been grouped with B, as it is in the first group, it cannot be grouped with B again. I'll keep poking at it when I have free time, puzzles are fun even though I am not good at them.
All those combinations are true. The trick is getting 35 combinations where there is no duplication. That becomes a lot tougher from what I see in his proof.
What I'm saying is that the standards that have been set cause the brain to be conditioned, therefore it is not pure, as in hearing music that is our personal preference, or taste, that is our personal preference. Because of how the brain works, sight works differently and it's not pure; it's conditioned.
But there is no such thing as a universal, constant standard of beauty, leaving us with...subjective values assigned by the individual brain.
But that's not true. That's why there are 'beautiful' girls and 'ugly' girls, and don't tell me that an 'ugly' girl is subjective. There are standards, and these standards are due to conditioning. We just never knew exactly how this conditioning took place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What you call "conditioning" is actually what I already described; the brain assigning categories, feelings, definitions, and values to every piece of data input. It does this with visual images, AND it does this with smells, tastes, tactile sensations and sounds. Did you know odor is the fastest and most pronounced memory trigger?
The brain does assign all of these things to certain data. That's why the mind is able to photograph and record experiences with an actual event. And that's why certain events trigger certain memories, which is different for each person. This photographing ability is exactly why words that give an inflection of pleasure or displeasure can easily condition the brain to believing that what its sees is an actual beautiful individual, where others are ugly. The most you can say when these words are removed is that certain features appeal to you more, but there will be no such thing as beautiful and ugly people. This has been a serious injustice to those considered physiognomically inferior, when in actual reality they are just different.
This is not the same as with smells, tastes, tactile sensations and sounds because there is direct input to the brain, so it is purely person even if most people like the taste of sweet over bitter. And yes, I was aware that odor is a very strong memory trigger. It also is being used as a healing modality, or a stress reliever.
[Here's three lines from my attempt under the spoiler, if anyone cares:
ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO
ADK BEL CFO JMG NKI
AEG BDH CMK JNF OLI
As you can see, no letter is "twice with any other/same letter" which I took to mean that if A has been grouped with B, as it is in the first group, it cannot be grouped with B again. I'll keep poking at it when I have free time, puzzles are fun even though I am not good at them.
You got to 15 groups of 3 under the new rules, I got 29 groups and ran out of letters that could be in a group with another letter. There is either some trick or Lessans proof is incorrect.
I think I would be strung up in the name of truth and justice because I am confronting a scientific explanation that I am saying could be mistaken. This becomes more of a threat than a preacher on a streetcorner.
You're no more a threat than the Time Cube guy, Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, or moon landing deniers.
The only fringe notion I feel is truly a threat is Scientology, because they harm people, in my opinion, and they have enough money to do more harm.
That's why there are 'beautiful' girls and 'ugly' girls, and don't tell me that an 'ugly' girl is subjective.
It is subjective. You can deny that all you want but it is a subjective value applied by an individual's brain. There is no universal constant standard.
You can't even hope to demonstrate that you are correct, though I would like to see you try to do so convincingly, you know with evidence.
I think I would be strung up in the name of truth and justice because I am confronting a scientific explanation that I am saying could be mistaken. This becomes more of a threat than a preacher on a streetcorner.
You're no more a threat than the Time Cube guy, Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, or moon landing deniers.
The only fringe notion I feel is truly a threat is Scientology, because they harm people, in my opinion, and they have enough money to do more harm.
It really is offensive to me to put this knowledge in the category of the Time Cube guy, Flat Earthers, or the Holocaust deniers. Lessans just doesn't fit there, and it's wrong of you to place him in this category. Why can't everyone refrain from categorizing him until there's further evidence?
Re: A revolution in thought
And if you call him a lunatic one more time, I promise you it will be a long time before I answer anymore of your posts.
Linear Mode
