A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

But you cannot compare the two because there are additives added to vaccines; in nature there are not. People say these adjuvants are safe, but do they really know for sure? Would you bet your life that these adjuvants are benign if you were a doctor, and also knowing that if a child had a bad reaction, you would not be held responsible? Also the rate at which novel antigens are encountered through the skin and through breathing is not the same as when babies are bombarded with these antigens, and the list is growing.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ADJUVANTS IN VACCINES by Viera Scheibner

Once again you yourself are the perfect example of the unsoundness of your own ideas.

For instance:

the rate at which novel antigens are encountered through the skin and through breathing is not the same as when babies are bombarded with these antigens,

Indeed not. The rate at which babies encounter antigens through, for instance, breast milk alone, is far higher. We have already explained this.

So any argument that vaccinations are unsafe because infants encounter antigens at too high a rate is an illogical one. Vaccinations do not have much of an impact on that rate at all.

But you cannot compare the two because there are additives added to vaccines;

The additives have nothing to do with the rate at which infants encounter antigens. That is an entirely separate issue, and one which seems to be based entirely around an argument from lack of evidence.

People say these adjuvants are safe, but do they really know for sure? Would you bet your life that these adjuvants are benign if you were a doctor, and also knowing that if a child had a bad reaction, you would not be held responsible? [/QUOTE

They are extensively studied, actually. A careful balance is struck between the (very small) chance of having a bad reaction to an adjuvant, the (also small) chance of having a negative reaction to a particular type of antigen, and the benefits derived from the increased chance of improved immunity that adjuvants help you get.

Oh really? So you're okay with putting mercury and formaldehyde into your infant? You are so brainwashed it makes me sick.

What's really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That being the case, why do you also "...feel there would be more participation in this thread if there wasn't such animosity."? That's a contradiction. Who is it you think is refraining from participating due to animosity if you also feel that people can "of course deal" because of group think?

Those who cannot deal with it. There's no contradiction whatsoever LadyShea. Of course who leaves as a result of this callousness or who refrains from participating cannot be measured with any accuracy (maybe you should do a survey of people's thoughts on this), but I believe it does play a part.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those who cannot deal with it. There's no contradiction whatsoever LadyShea. Of course who leaves as a result of this callousness or who refrains from participating cannot be measured with any accuracy (maybe you should do a survey of people's thoughts on this), but I believe it does play a part.

Peacegirl, if anyone is driven away from this thread it is your animosity and hostility that does it. There have been several people that have expressed interest and support for some of your ideas and you have attacked them when they post. It seemed that you were just automatically attacking anyone who posted with out actually reading the post.

I believe Ladyshea has stated that she does not believe in free will, (or someone did) and instead of trying to clarify what was meant, you attacked them for disagreeing with all details of the book and the proof of no free will. It is you who drive any potential supporters away.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is clarifying the conventional definition so that it is reflective of what is actually going on in reality. There has been great confusion with the definition that is provided, and why this debate hasn't gotten any closer to learning the truth.

He's not clarifying anything. It may appear that he is, since he's chosen a definition that is amenable to his simplistic argument, but the problem is that he can't apply any conclusions that he derives from considering Lessantological free will back to what most people mean when they say "free will" because they are simply not the same thing. No amount of hand waving is going to change the fact that he has simply invented a new concept (the ability to choose something other than one's preference), chosen to call it "free will", and then relied on equivocation between the conventional definition and his own definition to pretend that he has something relevant to say to anyone else. Rather than clarifying, he is adding to the confusion by using an existing term, "free will", to refer to his new concept, and inviting his readers to equivocate between the two distinct ideas.

It is important to accept this because it does prove that man's will is not free...I am saying that it is crucial that this proof is understood because it's accurate (and therefore has utility) and also because it is the foundational principle that leads to the two-sided equation (the actual discovery).

That's exactly backwards. We don't accept some premise because it leads to a particular conclusion. We accept some conclusion if and only if all its premises are true (and the argument is valid, of course).

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So you're okay with putting mercury and formaldehyde into your infant?

Mercury compounds, which are non-toxic, not mercury.

Here's something to chew on. Sodium is a highly reactive metal, and quite dangerous. Chlorine is a deadly gas that will kill you in a particularly horrible manner if you inhale enough of it. But allow the two to react and you get sodium chloride -- which is essential to life.

Chemical compounds often have very different properties from the elements that make them up.


Regardless. Do you let your infant breathe? If so, why? Because I can guarantee you that if you live anywhere near a coal-fired power plant (like, within a few hundred miles), (s)he is breathing in mercury compounds.

Do you let your infant anywhere near carpets? Because if so, (s)he is breathing in formaldehyde.

[Adam]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if anyone is driven away from this thread it is your animosity and hostility that does it. There have been several people that have expressed interest and support for some of your ideas and you have attacked them when they post. It seemed that you were just automatically attacking anyone who posted with out actually reading the post.

I have tried to clarify what I mean. She not only disagrees but says it with a false sense of authority.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe Ladyshea has stated that she does not believe in free will, (or someone did) and instead of trying to clarify what was meant, you attacked them for disagreeing with all details of the book and the proof of no free will. It is you who drive any potential supporters away.

She does not agree with anything Lessans says. She calls his proof a modal fallacy or an assertion, and she says it with the authority of someone who knows what they are talking about, which she doesn't. I am not driving anyone away without their help.

[Adam]

Do you know what "assertion" means?

ETA, since you edited: Can you explain the modal fallacy?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is clarifying the conventional definition so that it is reflective of what is actually going on in reality. There has been great confusion with the definition that is provided, and why this debate hasn't gotten any closer to learning the truth.

He's not clarifying anything. It may appear that he is, since he's chosen a definition that is amenable to his simplistic argument,

What are you referring to when you say "a definition that is amenable to his simplistic argument"? His argument is not simplistic, so you're wrong right there. Maybe there are other definitions of free will that would work just as well, but there is nothing wrong with the one he offered.

Originally Posted by Adam

but the problem is that he can't apply any conclusions that he derives from considering Lessantological free will back to what most people mean when they say "free will" because they are simply not the same thing.

But this wasn't his idiosyncratic definition. This definition came right from the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Adam

No amount of hand waving is going to change the fact that he has simply invented a new concept (the ability to choose something other than one's preference), chosen to call it "free will", and then relied on equivocation between the conventional definition and his own definition to pretend that he has something relevant to say to anyone else. Rather than clarifying, he is adding to the confusion by using an existing term, "free will", to refer to his new concept, and inviting his readers to equivocate between the two distinct ideas.

The definition of free will he gave is the conventional definition, but it is not useful because it does not reflect the truth, which he then goes on to clarify. He did not rely on equivocation to pretend that he has something relevant to say. That was not his style.

It is important to accept this because it does prove that man's will is not free...I am saying that it is crucial that this proof is understood because it's accurate (and therefore has utility) and also because it is the foundational principle that leads to the two-sided equation (the actual discovery).

Originally Posted by Adam

That's exactly backwards. We don't accept some premise because it leads to a particular conclusion. We accept some conclusion if and only if all its premises are true (and the argument is valid, of course).

That's exactly right. We can only accept a conclusion if all of its premises are true. Who is arguing with that? Before you tell me his knowledge is bogus, I suggest you really try to understand his proof, which I don't think you do.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place

p. 44 The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise.

In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his
particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be
wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note.

Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary
to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion
of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family
but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States
and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of
unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit
for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If he steals
a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish him by
saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly
true.

Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an
option which was good. In this case almost any other alternative
would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing
because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the
evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him,
at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were
available to him — so does this make his will free? It is obvious that
he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it
is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish
him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did
under the circumstances.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Translation: I read all of your posts in this thread. That's what "ignore" means.

Ignore means not acknowledging someone. It does not necessarily mean that I won't read their posts. Sometimes I see posts from a person before I sign in as peacegirl. That's what happened here and I was compelled to answer.

ig·nore/igˈnôr/
Verb
Refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.Eg: "he ignored her question".
Fail to consider (something significant).Eg: "satellite broadcasting ignores national boundaries".

Very true.

Thanks for the dragon fighting. That was absolutely thrilling.

I am not sure where he came up with this metaphor, but that was his writing and I was not going to change it for anybody.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...it's not implausible just because it seems unrealistic...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is practically the definition of "implausible".

Fair enough. I should have said it's not impossible just because it seems implausible.

Implausible:

Something that's Implausible is farfetched or unlikely. If it's 3pm and you still have to study for three exams and write an essay before midnight, it’s implausible that you’ll also have time to watch a movie.
The adjective implausible breaks down into im, meaning “not,” and "plausible," meaning likely. So it simply means "not likely." Implausible ideas or stories usually get high marks for creativity, but they're just too crazy to be believable. But as philosopher Rene Descartes noted, “One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.”

implausible - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Jesus forgives our misdeeds (better word) as long as he knows we are being sincere in our effort to correct our mistakes.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is nearly always better to use a word that means what you are trying to say rather than a word that means something else entirely. You can file that bit of advice under "Best Practices".

Another thumbs up for Angakuk.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Being histrionic or sullen or whatever adjective suits your fancy does not mean my argument in defense of the book is wrong.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Of course not and I don't recall that anyone here has claimed otherwise. Those behaviors are simply mistakes in presentation resulting from errors in judgement (and/or defects in character) on your part. They do not materially affect the merits of your arguments. However, your frequent errors of fact do constitute mistakes which undermine your arguments in defense of the book.

No they actually don't. That would be judging my personal errors (which have nothing to do with the facts in the book) and using it as a reason to reject the book. That would be like saying I was wrong when I said you had a hamburger for dinner last night, and because of that the book cannot be true. And what do you call "frequent errors"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are we trading chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and other harmless childhood illnesses for a lifetime of chronic disease? http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hold it right there, Sparky! Referring to potentially fatal diseases such as chickenpox, measles, mumps and rubella as "harmless childhood illnesses" is so egregiously wrong that it would be irresponsible for the reader to trust anything else that author writes. That right there is the kind of mistake that undermines the value of an argument. By extension, when you cite him as an authority supporting your position you undermine your own argument as well.

I guess the entire Association of American Physicians & Surgeons is wrong as well, and we shouldn't trust them either.

“Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of
childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction
(say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or
uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for
universal vaccination.” — Association of American Physicians &
Surgeons

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you referring to when you say "a definition that is amenable to his simplistic argument"?

Lessan's "argument" (in reality, just a tautology dressed up as an argument, but whatever) only works if "free will" is defined such that the ability to choose something other than one's preference is essential to it.

His argument is not simplistic, so you're wrong right there. Maybe there are other definitions of free will that would work just as well, but there is nothing wrong with the one he offered.

The only thing "wrong" with it is that, again, is is not what anyone else means when they talk about free will. If I want to define "employment" such that squaring a circle is essential to being employed, that's my prerogative, but I shouldn't be surprised that no one is especially impressed by my argument that the US currently has a 100% unemployment rate.

But this wasn't his idiosyncratic definition. This definition came right from the dictionary.

Do you know what "equivocation" means? Lessans is clearly using "good" and "evil" in a different sense than that meant by the author of the dictionary he quotes. That's equivocation. By using different senses of the words used in the definition, he changes the definition, without admitting that he has done so.

Can you cite any other source that believes that the ability to choose other than one's own preference is essential to free will? No, you cannot. You cannot do so because no one else uses that definition of "free will". This is not a "clarification". It is a completely different, completely idiosyncratic, definition.

The definition of free will he gave is the conventional definition, but it is not useful because it does not reflect the truth, which he then goes on to clarify. He did not rely on equivocation to pretend that he has something relevant to say. That was not his style.

Again, I have to ask, do you understand what "equivocation" means?

That's exactly right. We can only accept a conclusion if all of its premises are true. Who is arguing with that?

You have repeatedly suggested it. "It is important to accept this because it does prove that man's will is not free". Unless you're just saying that is emotionally important to you that people accept this?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you let your infant anywhere near carpets? Because if so, (s)he is breathing in formaldehyde.

Many construction materials out gas formaldehyde for some time, the High School my daughters attended did extensive renovations while they attended and the both complained of frequent migraine headaches, and I used to get migraine headaches when I drank Sanka coffee, which used formaldehyde in the decaffeinating process, but I found out later that I am not allergic to formaldehyde.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No we did not agree.

Oy. I wrote that, per Lessans, "Thou Shalt Not Blame" is a "corollary" of the fact that people lack free will. You responded, "Yes, that's true." If you can't acknowledge that as an agreement, well ...

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

There would be no consequences to conscience operating at 100% capacity as opposed to the current 10%-30% capacity? Lessans disagrees!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The knowledge that there would be no consequences presents consequences that no one wants to ever face, which prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary in a free will environment.

Again, we can't "know" something that isn't true. According to Lessans, "Thou shalt not blame" applies only before a harm is delivered, not after. After a harm is delivered, blame and retaliation are justified. Therefore, we "know" the opposite of what you're claiming; we "know" that if we deliver a harm, there will be consequences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about? There will be total freedom, but the freedom comes with responsibility.

Man-made laws or not, the freedom is chimerical. Choice is illusory, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh my. The DoI was the Continental Congress' "fuck you" letter to King George, nothing more. In addition, it's a piece of paper. Pieces of paper don't create "rights."

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of people who signed the DoI served in state and/or federal government, during which they endorsed all sorts of man-made restrictions on human activity (criminal codes and such). That being true, we can safely surmise that the signers didn't see "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness" as a restriction on government authority to regulate behavior.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right; this is not about compliance. I'm not complying with the laws of my nature; I have no choice but to live these laws because my nature demands that I act within that nature.

I'd celebrate yet another point of agreement, but the last time I tried it didn't turn out well at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really? When you say "must" it sounds like a demand.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh deary deary me oh my.

I am not the one who used the term "must" to describe the two-sided equation. Your father did. The following quote, which also appeared in my last post, came straight out of the book:

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans

What is the two-sided equation and what is the first discovery?

It is simply this. I must hold myself responsible for doing to you what I know you must excuse. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, your statement that "this has nothing to do with 'must'" is incorrect as a simple matter of fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know where you got this notion.

From multiple places in the book. I don't have access to my copy right now, but I can post exact quotes another time if you'd like.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So then please stop with the derogatory comments about Lessantonian Grand Society and the Sacred Book. You will one day regret how you put him down.

For purposes of the present discussion, I've agreed. Beyond that, I'll post whatever I goddamn jolly well please.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it will exist.

The condition precedent is knowledge that no one would every blame us for striking a first blow. However, according to Lessans, the no-blame principle applies only before a first blow is delivered; once the blow falls, all bets are off and blame is A-OK. Thus, we know that we will be blamed in the event we strike a first blow. The condition precedent can't arise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to show you that under the changed conditions, you can only move in one direction because your will is not free to hurt others who have not hurt you first. This would be a first blow which cannot be justified. You cannot do it. You are checkmated.

Maybe, just maybe, everything will play out exactly like Lessans said it would. If that happens, though, it won't be for the reasons Lessans describes, which are torpedoed by the limited applicability of the no-blame corollary as discussed above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a necessary condition to move from a free will society where blame and punishment is the cornerstone of civilization to a no blame society where no blame or punishment is the cornerstone of civilization. People have to make a commitment not to blame as a starting point. They have to hold themselves accountable to their promise that they will not blame in turn for the guarantee. You have to remember that we are talking about prevention here; not after the fact. You are assuming that hurt will still occur, and that we're going to have to turn the other cheek after you hurt us, but the advance knowledge that we will turn the other cheek because we now know that your will is not free, is the very thing that prevents your desire to strike a first blow. It's paradoxical, but this is how it works.

That certainly is an assemblage of words, but it's nonresponsive. You're merely reasserting that the contract is a necessary condition without providing any explanation of the "why" and "how" as called for in the questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true; it is efferent vision that allows us to see the object in real time because light is a condition only. It does not bring the image to us through space/time.

Surely you must see that your statement boils down to "efferent vision is true because of efferent vision," which is a 100% information-free statement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You might approve of these "sources", peacegirl. Maybe you'll take their word for it.

Toxics In Our Lives

Are You Exposed? Five Everyday Toxins Invading Your Brain


Risky Chemicals You are Exposed to Every Day | IsaFYI

That is true, so the question is: Does the fact that the body already is overloaded with toxins justify adding more toxins to the body? Of course not. If anything, it should give us pause what we are doing to our children. There is no way to know what the tipping point is which will cause irreparable harm to a child, therefore it is immoral and unethical for government to dictate that every single child has to be vaccinated according to any recommendation that happens to come down the pike, or else be taken away from their parents.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess the entire Association of American Physicians & Surgeons is wrong as well, and we shouldn't trust them either.

AAPS is a wingnut political organization having little to do with actual medicine:

Yet despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD. The group (which did not return calls for comment for this story) has been around since 1943. Some of its former leaders were John Birchers, and its political philosophy comes straight out of Ayn Rand. Its general counsel is Andrew Schlafly, son of the legendary conservative activist Phyllis. The AAPS statement of principles declares that it is "evil" and "immoral" for physicians to participate in Medicare and Medicaid, and its journal is a repository for quackery. Its website features claims that tobacco taxes harm public health and electronic medical records are a form of "data control" like that employed by the East German secret police. An article on the AAPS website speculated that Barack Obama may have won the presidency by hypnotizing voters, especially cohorts known to be susceptible to "neurolinguistic programming"—that is, according to the writer, young people, educated people, and possibly Jews.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Mercury compounds, which are non-toxic, not mercury.

Here's something to chew on. Sodium is a highly reactive metal, and quite dangerous. Chlorine is a deadly gas that will kill you in a particularly horrible manner if you inhale enough of it. But allow the two to react and you get sodium chloride -- which is essential to life.

Chemical compounds often have very different properties from the elements that make them up.


Regardless. Do you let your infant breathe? If so, why? Because I can guarantee you that if you live anywhere near a coal-fired power plant (like, within a few hundred miles), (s)he is breathing in mercury compounds.

Do you let your infant anywhere near carpets? Because if so, (s)he is breathing in formaldehyde.

I saw a t.v. show where a baby almost died because of the new carpeting in his bedroom. He couldn't breathe, and they finally traced it back to the carpeting. I certainly would not like to live near a coal-fired power plant knowing my child is breathing in mercury. Is your point that it's all okay, and that we should not care what goes into the lungs of our children?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

AAPS is a wingnut political organization having little to do with actual medicine:

You can find reasons to pooh pooh anybody you want. The fact remains that we are seeing more and more chronic illnesses in our children, which may be associated with the number and frequency of vaccinations. You may not believe there is an association, and therefore wouldn't hesitate to give your children everything that the APA recommends. I would not. If I was a mother today, I would seriously question the latest vaccine schedule, which is many times greater than what my children received.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I saw a t.v. show where a baby almost died because of the new carpeting in his bedroom. He couldn't breathe, and they finally traced it back to the carpeting. I certainly would not like to live near a coal-fired power plant knowing my child is breathing in mercury. Is your point that it's all okay, and that we should not care what goes into the lungs of our children?

Jesus fucking Christ, you are so goddamned stupid, or dishonest, or both in equal measure. You are just breathtakingly fucked up in the head. Do you seriously believe this is an accurate characterization of what he wrote? Holy shit!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are "perfectly equal in intrinsic value" to whom?

To each other.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Without a valuer, there is no such thing as value.

We are talking about intrinsic value here. When we use words that stratify people into layers of value based on their physiognomies or abilities and turn them into a standards that we use to judge ourselves and others by, it is made to appear that some people have more intrinsic value than others. The truth is that there can only be personal value, and when these words are removed, that is what will remain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. Vaccination programs have been so successful in this country that few Americans realize just how deadly these diseases are. Back in the "good old days" before vaccinations were widely available, the mortality rate for measles could be as high as 30%. And many who survived were left blind. In parts of the world where vaccines aren't widely available, these diseases remain deadly killers. According to the World Health Organization, measles alone killed 158,000 people in 2011.

I never said that vaccinations don't have their place, but where do we draw the line? At 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 500, 1000? Do we blindly accept every recommendation put out by government, or do we question the safety and efficacy of these powerful vaccines? According to your reasoning, it wouldn't matter how many injections our children get because they are a drop in the bucket compared to what children are subjected to in their natural environment. Is that what you're saying? If you were a doctor, could you in all honesty guarantee every parent that these vaccinations are 100% safe? If you could, the more power to you, but in the new world if something should go wrong, you would have to live with your mistake because there would be no way to excuse it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'll post whatever I goddamn jolly well please.

One might even say that you are under a compulsion to do so.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can find reasons to pooh pooh anybody you want.

Yes indeed, and the reasons for pooh-poohing anything that comes from AAPS are extraordinarily good.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact remains that we are seeing more and more chronic illnesses in our children,

Maybe, maybe not. A seeming increase in frequency may be the result of improved detection techniques.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

which may be associated with the number and frequency of vaccinations.

The increased frequency, if it exists, may also be the result of those invisible faeries that keep impregnating Vivisectus' wife.

:shakeinvisiblefaeries:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not believe there is an association, and therefore wouldn't hesitate to give your children everything that the APA recommends.

I've done a lot of dumbass things in my life, but fortunately, fathering children was not one of them. I don't know how parents manage. In their shoes I'd be a freaked-out basket case 24-7-365.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would not.

Lots of folks feel that way, and it's ridiculously easy for parents to avoid vaccinating their children lawfully these days. If it takes a small pox comeback to get the legal pendulum swinging the other way, so be it, I guess.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Adam

One might even say that you are under a compulsion to do so.

Compelled of my own free will, even.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

A seeming increase in frequency may be the result of improved detection techniques.

Indeed. Similarly, the probability that you'll die from cancer has increased dramatically over the past century. You know why? Because, with improved treatment and prevention of communicable diseases, more people are living long-enough to die of cancer -- instead of things like polio or measles.

Similarly, if you reduce the incidence of acute diseases, it's a statistical certainty that the relative rate of chronic diseases will increase.

That's elementary statistics. It's stuff like this that makes me think it would be a good idea to make it mandatory for people to take and pass a course in Elementary Probabiity and Statistics before they're judged eligable to hold public office.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lessan's "argument" (in reality, just a tautology dressed up as an argument, but whatever) only works if "free will" is defined such that the ability to choose something other than one's preference is essential to it.

Free will is defined as the ability to choose from the options available the choice one wants or the choice one does not want equally. That a person is free to choose either/or. But how is that possible?

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity.

His argument is not simplistic, so you're wrong right there. Maybe there are other definitions of free will that would work just as well, but there is nothing wrong with the one he offered.

Originally Posted by Adam

The only thing "wrong" with it is that, again, is is not what anyone else means when they talk about free will. If I want to define "employment" such that squaring a circle is essential to being employed, that's my prerogative, but I shouldn't be surprised that no one is especially impressed by my argument that the US currently has a 100% unemployment rate.

Most people define free will as being able to choose without outside constraint or persuasion, but this is a superficial definition.

But this wasn't his idiosyncratic definition. This definition came right from the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Adam

Do you know what "equivocation" means? Lessans is clearly using "good" and "evil" in a different sense than that meant by the author of the dictionary he quotes. That's equivocation. By using different senses of the words used in the definition, he changes the definition, without admitting that he has done so.

What are you talking about? How is he using the word good and evil differently than the author of the dictionary definition?

Originally Posted by Adam

Can you cite any other source that believes that the ability to choose other than one's own preference is essential to free will? No, you cannot. You cannot do so because no one else uses that definition of "free will". This is not a "clarification". It is a completely different, completely idiosyncratic, definition.

But that's just the point. There is only one direction a person can go when comparing preferable differences, which does not give him a free choice at all. This is what you're not getting.

The definition of free will he gave is the conventional definition, but it is not useful because it does not reflect the truth, which he then goes on to clarify. He did not rely on equivocation to pretend that he has something relevant to say. That was not his style.

Originally Posted by Adam

Again, I have to ask, do you understand what "equivocation" means?

Equivocation:

Equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings.

Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

Show me where he does this.

That's exactly right. We can only accept a conclusion if all of its premises are true. Who is arguing with that?

Originally Posted by Adam

You have repeatedly suggested it. "It is important to accept this because it does prove that man's will is not free". Unless you're just saying that is emotionally important to you that people accept this?

I don't expect you to accept anything you don't understand, but it is necessary to see the proof in order to know that his conclusions are valid.