A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people could have accepted the premise that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater preference (or satisfaction), we could have moved forward, but it's too late.

So are you now saying that we do not move in the direction of greater preference (or satisfaction)?

BTW, preference and satisfaction are not equivalent or interchangeable, unlike scientific and undeniable. .

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that being mean can ruin a conversation. There's no place for it if the goal is to hear another point of view. Name calling squelches the desire to converse knowing that one's ideas will be ridiculed because they are not accepted by the group.

Your sentence quoted above indicates you see a relationship between the squelching of free speech and meanness. Additionally, you are now saying that squelching a desire to converse and squelching of freedom of speech are synonymous.

From what I gather, what you are really trying to say is that some people don't want to socialize or discuss with people they think are mean. I agree, and I think those people should refrain from socializing or discussing with people they think are mean.

I left here and people followed me.

Yes. However, you had some time with those forums prior to people from here showing up there. Were you enjoying those discussions? What if you found a group that agreed with you or had a different culture than , would those that followed you have been tolerated or allowed to "take hostage" your thread, or ridiculed out of there as outsiders? Maybe you should seek those groups that won't be welcoming to the type of mean people you think we are.

I would have loved to go to another group (there are quite a few out there), but spiders would have given people clues as to where I was, and I would never tolerate having people from this group take my thread hostage like they did in project reason. Anyway, I'm going to market soon and won't have time for this silliness.

They are as free as you to discuss at open discussion forums. Again if you find, or even start, a group that thinks as you do on "bullying" and "squelching speech" etc., then anyone that followed you would be the outsiders, right?

Nobody is saying you're helpless and that it isn't within your power to own your experience, but words are what we use online, and if those words are foul, the experience is not enjoyable and will compel people, of their own free will (I know David has no clue what I mean by that), to leave. Then you'll wait until the next sucker joins this "freethought" group so you can use him as fodder.

The nature of free speech is such that everyone can say what they want It's not my responsibility to ensure others enjoy their time or whatever. And some people do enjoy their time here at or it wouldn't exist and have members.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The victims of the mob, once they understand the game, do eventually leave and never come back.

Yes, people that do not like it here can and should leave and never come back. You, however, were actually not talking about them. You were talking about alleged people who stay here and participate while actively avoiding being a target, and not daring to cross lines, out of self preservation. Who are those people?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I notice you once again just claim that it is so. Please to point out the case.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It's right there in Chapter Two. I worked on this to make sure it was as clear as possible. I'm not cutting and pasting anymore, and I'm not repeating it anymore. I've been there and done that.

No, chapter two has the claim that conscience works that way, but does not make a case for assuming that claim is correct. I see you chose option 2: evasion. You just say "It is there somewhere but I cannot be bothered to point it out".

The other two options, which you will soon avail of, are irrationalism or plain old dishonesty.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The victims of the mob, once they understand the game, do eventually leave and never come back.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

Yes, people that do not like it here can and should leave and never come back. You, however, were actually not talking about them. You were talking about alleged people who stay here and participate while actively avoiding being a target, and not daring to cross lines, out of self preservation. Who are those people?

I nominate Maturin. And now that his secret is out we should totally gang-stomp him verbally. I'll get the pitchforks, you grab the torches!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So are you now saying that we do not move in the direction of greater preference (or satisfaction)?

BTW, preference and satisfaction are not equivalent or interchangeable, unlike scientific and undeniable. .

We move in the direction of what we find most preferable among the options that are available. That is perfectly fine and in keeping with "greater satisfaction." What else are you going to pick on?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, you never disappoint, let me down, fail to satisfy, or disappoint.

That's why you're here. You get satisfaction! If I failed to satisfy your desire to be entertained, you wouldn't stay. Your dissatisfaction would take you in a different direction. Even if you're getting a sick satisfaction, it's still satisfaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Oooo, she likes vulgar, she said it twice.

Thanks, I fixed it. That's what happens when you copy out of order.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't need justification. Nobody needs any justification. I say what I want to say because I want to say it and have a right to say it. As does everyone else. That is what freedom of speech is.

You can say anything you want, but deep down if you know you're hurting someone's feelings, you can't do it unless you can justify it in your own mind. It doesn't have to be on a conscious level.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you said we were squelching free speech and I said we weren't. Your Utopia is irrelevant to that topic.

But in our society people can always find a way to justify behavior that is hurtful, if that's their goal. For example, by saying to themselves that a person is a woo, this justifies the disrespect and namecalling that follows, just like in years past if someone saw a black person in the street, this justified the disrespect and namecalling that followed. It's not really any different, only the former is condoned where the latter is not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You bolded the wrong part. The important distinction is this

justify: show or prove to be right or reasonable.

Reasons and explanations need not demonstrate rightness or reasonableness

Reasons for Action: Justification vs. Explanation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Justification works hand in hand with conscience. They are like two sides of the same coin. When you are contemplating a certain action, you need to justify whether your action is reasonable, especially if there is a risk of someone getting hurt. You don't need a justification if there is no chance of someone getting hurt. I don't need to justify making dinner when I'm hungry because this does no involve a moral dilemma. An excuse is similar except it's usually used after an action has occurred, where someone in authority is questioning what your reasons were for doing such and such. If your excuse is reasonable, then most likely you will get a lesser punishment if what you did had mitigating circumstances. That's what my son is trying to do in a murder case that started today. He is the defense lawyer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I'll not put this one on my bucket list until I've managed to out-sprint a snail and out-shout a mouse.

This is so funny I forgot to laugh.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Hey, now. You can make fun of me all you want and, just between us, that Lady Shea is a big meanie who makes people cry with her mind, but don't go picking on maddog. She's a nice lady.

I don't know someone used the name maddodg. I'm sure she is a nice lady.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Oh, why didn't you just say earlier that all Lessans' claims were true? I was thinking I'd need to see a compelling argument, but I'm sure your assurances will do instead.

I did say all his claims are true, and I have given a compelling argument. What's with you? Have you been sleeping for two years?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Out of curiosity, how do you think that vaccines work?

Immunization works by tricking the body into believing it is experiencing a full-scale invasion by an infectious agent so that the immune system can fortify its defenses. During vaccination, a harmless version of a germ is introduced to the body and the immune system responds by producing antibodies to attack the intruder. Thereafter, a memory of this “invasion” remains so that the immune system can quickly recognize and neutralize disease-causing agents when they appear.

UNICEF - Immunization - How does immunization work?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Specifically, do you think that there is a limit to how many different types of antigen-specific T- and B-lymphocytes we can produce in a given amount of time? If so, why? Be certain to provide appropriate references.

No, it's not about how many antigen-specific T- and B-lymphocytes we can produce in a given amount of time. It's about the safety of putting so many toxins into the body at once, or in a short time frame.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, be certain to account for the fact that a normal child will encounter many more than 36 novel antigens during the first 2 years of life, and yet will have no trouble producing B- and T-lymphocytes specific to those antigens. So why does exposing them to a few more matter?

Because this vaccine schedule has never been tested for combination risk, for one. Secondly, the exposure time is artificial and we don't know how the immune system can handle this onslaught. I, as a parent, would want the choice which vaccines I feel are necessary and which I don't, and I would be the one to decide how far apart a vaccine is given. Finally, there are adjuvants in vaccines that are known carcinogens.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I nominate Maturin. And now that his secret is out we should totally gang-stomp him verbally. I'll get the pitchforks, you grab the torches!

I'll start heating the tar, someone else will need to get the chickens. I think I have a rail laying around somewhere, from the last time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We move in the direction of what we find most preferable among the options that are available. That is perfectly fine and in keeping with "greater satisfaction."

Asserted and defined as such, but not proven.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Immunization works by tricking the body into believing it is experiencing a full-scale invasion by an infectious agent so that the immune system can fortify its defenses. During vaccination, a harmless version of a germ is introduced to the body and the immune system responds by producing antibodies to attack the intruder. Thereafter, a memory of this “invasion” remains so that the immune system can quickly recognize and neutralize disease-causing agents when they appear.

UNICEF - Immunization - How does immunization work?

Laugh out loud. Look at her Google and cut and paste!

He didn't ask how Unicef thought vaccines worked. He asked how you thought they worked. In your own words. You have no clue how they work, do you? Asshole.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say anything you want, but deep down if you know you're hurting someone's feelings, you can't do it unless you can justify it in your own mind. It doesn't have to be on a conscious level.

I can think of several people that I could hurt their feelings without the slightest twinge of conscience, and intentionally. Unfortunately most of what I would consider is illegal.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know someone used the name maddodg. I'm sure she is a nice lady.

She is indeed. Remember how she schooled you on your moral bankruptcy awhile back? That was a service of kindness (not that you're capable of recognizing it as such).

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'll start heating the tar, someone else will need to get the chickens. I think I have a rail laying around somewhere, from the last time.

Long as there's gonna be mashed potatoes, count me in!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Jesus forgives our misgivings. I don't need to supply you, of all people, with the verse that says this. I can find it if I take the time, but this is a crazy request since everyone knows that Jesus forgives tresspassers who confess their sins and He will not hold people to account if they admit their wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness. Am I wrong here?

Well, you are right in saying that "Jesus forgives trespassers who confess their sins" but how is that the same thing as saying that Jesus doesn't "count how many times it took for someone to get it right"? For all you know he may keep count of all those failed attempts to get it right and of all the times he has forgiven the same. As for, "Jesus forgives our misgivings", I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you even know what you meant by that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what people have done to me; they are using my mistakes as some kind of proof that this book can have no merit.

No one is doing that. They are using Lessans' errors as proof that his book has no merit. They are using your mistakes as proof that your arguments in defense of his book have no merit. Can you see the difference?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I should be respected for my right as a parent to do what I feel is best.

Since your children are all grown you pretty much have no parental rights left.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BEWARE OF MAD DOGS.

And Englishmen. Don't forget the Englishmen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, it has ruined any chance for a fair and enjoyable conversation.

I, for one, am finding this conversation fairly enjoyable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say anything you want, but deep down if you know you're hurting someone's feelings, you can't do it unless you can justify it in your own mind. It doesn't have to be on a conscious level.

But in our society people can always find a way to justify behavior that is hurtful, if that's their goal. For example, by saying to themselves that a person is a woo, this justifies the disrespect and namecalling that follows, just like in years past if someone saw a black person in the street, this justified the disrespect and namecalling that followed. It's not really any different, only the former is condoned where the latter is not.

Judging people on their words and actions and judging people on the color of their skin are very, very, very different. That you don't see this difference is very odd.

All of my judgments are based on people's behavior, not on any traits that are out of their control or ability to influence or change.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Immunization works by tricking the body into believing it is experiencing a full-scale invasion by an infectious agent so that the immune system can fortify its defenses. During vaccination, a harmless version of a germ is introduced to the body and the immune system responds by producing antibodies to attack the intruder. Thereafter, a memory of this “invasion” remains so that the immune system can quickly recognize and neutralize disease-causing agents when they appear.

UNICEF - Immunization - How does immunization work?

No, it's not about how many antigen-specific T- and B-lymphocytes we can produce in a given amount of time. It's about the safety of putting so many toxins into the body at once, or in a short time frame.

Because this vaccine schedule has never been tested for combination risk, for one. Secondly, the exposure time is artificial and we don't know how the immune system can handle this onslaught. I, as a parent, would want the choice which vaccines I feel are necessary and which I don't, and I would be the one to decide how far apart a vaccine is given. Finally, there are adjuvants in vaccines that are known carcinogens.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

So, in other words, no, you don't understand how vaccines work. And you certainly don't understand how the immune system works.

Figured as much.

[LadyShea]

What does she think we take into our body every day just from breathing and eating and having skin and stuff?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Long as there's gonna be mashed potatoes, count me in!

I'll start smashing the spuds, and I'll use my best work boots, the ones I muck out stall with, and you can have them all to yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And Englishmen. Don't forget the Englishmen.

Who go out in the mid-day sun.