A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you think you deserve credit for trying yet failing, and then resorting to lies and evasion?

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

Which you have corrupted to:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, why do you believe I have the wrong book?

peacegirl, how have I "used it against him"? I just asked what the factual basis for that conclusion was - you indicated that there is none. Ok.

He didn't make this a claim. He believed this to be true based on the times he was living in. Now we know there is often a genetic basis for our preferences.

I just told you I took out that one word. Why do you keep repeating the same question?

Originally Posted by Chuck

peacegirl, you took out more than one word. Why do you keep lying?

A sentence or a couple of sentences, whatever. I took out nothing else. Stop calling me a liar. I didn't want anything to get in the way of people studying these principles. I was right to take it out. Maybe it backfired but at the very least the book is being discussed which is better than nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which you have corrupted to:

So funny I forgot to laugh.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was not a claim where he needed a data set.

peacegirl, how do you know he did not "need" a data set to make this claim? How did you determine that, peacegirl? Where did 98% come from - what was the basis of claiming that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" rather than, say, 97%, or 63%?

peacegirl, what kinds of claims need data to support them?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A sentence or a couple of sentences, whatever. I took out nothing else.

The Corrupted Text that you hawk online is corrupt.

Stop calling me a liar.

peacegirl, why do you keep saying things that are demonstrably untrue?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop calling me a liar.

Stop lying.

[Angakuk]

First it was just one word.
Then it was just one sentence.
Then it was just a couple of sentences.

When will this nightmare end?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So according to you the book contains assumptions that are presented as claims? And you just decide which is which?

These were not claims. You cannot use this as a reason to dismiss his entire discovery.

I suppose you are right: they are presented as facts, complete with a percentage even. And look! It is not 99%, but a precise 98%.

But it turns out this is a mere assumption?

So what else is presented as fact, but turns out to be just an assumption?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, how do you know he did not "need" a data set to make this claim?

It wasn't a claim.

Originally Posted by chuck

How did you determine that, peacegirl? Where did 98% come from - what was the basis of claiming that "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" rather than, say, 97%, or 63%?

I don't think he meant 98% to be taken literally. He could have said the majority.

Originally Posted by chuck

peacegirl, what kinds of claims need data to support them?

Proof of his claim would be if it works under real life conditions. Testing his claims using the scientific method wouldn't work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

First it was just one word.
Then it was just one sentence.
Then it was just a couple of sentences.

When will this nightmare end?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It was a small group of sentences at the end of the chapter that mentioned homosexuality. That's all I took out for the reasons given. I may actually put it back in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I suppose you are right: they are presented as facts, complete with a percentage even. And look! It is not 99%, but a precise 98%.

But it turns out this is a mere assumption?

So what else is presented as fact, but turns out to be just an assumption?

If you choose to believe that his discoveries are nothing more than assumptions because he used 98% to mean "the majority" (he didn't mean 98% to be taken literally which would have to be backed up by data sets), then do what you must do.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

...rather than, say, 97%, or 63%?

Lessans seems to like percentages as a way of making his opinions appear more like facts. In partcular the 98% figure is his way of saying, 'almost everyone', or 'virtually all'. It crops up many times in his works:

Originally Posted by Lessans Beyond the Framework p14

...yet because it lies hidden behind a theory that 98% of mankind are compelled to believe true...

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall Foreword

...psychological law that was hermetically sealed behind a logical theory that 98% of mankind holds true...

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p22

...that a theory exists regarding man's nature that is accepted as true by 98% of mankind

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p25

This law of our nature is not a premise, not an assumption, not a theory, but when 98% of the world believes otherwise...

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p215

If 98% of the government eventually gets displaced because there is no further need for their services...

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p329

God, or the force that controls our movement in the direction of greater satisfaction, is forcing us to rely on our body to take care of 98% of all its problems...

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p591

...when 98% of mankind believe that man's will is free, and when this belief hermetically seals a door behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great Transition.

But I only found two occurrences of 99%:

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p328

...99% of what now disturbs the body will be warded off because of the perfect condition of the mind and a great many illnesses will be wiped from the face of the earth.

Originally Posted by Lessans Decline and Fall p282

...to do so would be a sign of selfishness and would not reveal their love, replies in 99% of the cases, "No thank you" which means the question will never be asked.

There is a section about interest rates that mention 4%, (10%, 15, 20, 25, 30%).

In other passages about taxes and finances I also found occurrences of 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 19%, 20%, 25%, 32%, 36%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%.

There are also lots of instances of 100% which is just a Lessans synonym for 'certain'.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There are also lots of instances of 100% which is just a Lessans synonym for 'certain'.

Mathematical?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you choose to believe that his discoveries are nothing more than assumptions because he used 98% to mean "the majority" (he didn't mean 98% to be taken literally which would have to be backed up by data sets), then do what you must do.

Ok, so when he wrote "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" he really meant "the majority of of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

peacegirl, what facts support that conclusion? Is there any reason at all to believe that "the majority of of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, so when he wrote "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" he really meant "the majority of of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

peacegirl, what facts support that conclusion? Is there any reason at all to believe that "the majority of of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love"?

I answered you already. You have a habit of repeating yourself. To repeat: He believed that the environment had an influence, but we now know there is a huge genetic component. Regardless, people of all sexual persuasions will be treated with utmost respect. Stop misconstruing what he meant by this statement. Now that this is out of the way (hopefully), and the chapter on sex is over (hopefully), can we now get down to brass tacks to see why his discoveries are true, or are you going to pick on other trivialities just so you can create doubt in the mind of the reader?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't make this a claim.

Predictably false. Your father wrote, "You will discover that 98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love.' That's a claim, breh. The fact that the statement is laughably false doesn't make it any less a claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A sentence or a couple of sentences, whatever. I took out nothing else.

You've removed lots more by your admission. Who do you think you're fooling with these transparent falsehoods?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop calling me a liar.

That'd require you to stop telling lies, and that just ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was right to take it out.

You were right to brutalize the Authentic Text written by the author and published during his lifetime? You have some peculiar ideas about what qualifies as "right."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it backfired ...

Ain't no maybe about it, Cochise.

See, you're not just a liar; you're an extraordinarily poor liar. You were caught in lie after lie after lie for years before Chuck got his hands on the Authentic Text. Going forward, you have zero chance of prevaricating successfully.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... but at the very least the book is being discussed which is better than nothing.

It's not so much "the book" that's being discuss as your inept and ham-handed butchery of the Authentic Text.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

He believed that the environment had an influence, but we now know there is a huge genetic component.

A huge genetic component you say? How huge? So big that the statement "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" can be considered wrong?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you choose to believe that his discoveries are nothing more than assumptions because he used 98% to mean "the majority" (he didn't mean 98% to be taken literally which would have to be backed up by data sets), then do what you must do.

Not just the majority, a vast majority. 98 out of every 100.

The problem is that we are supposed to believe that this guy was able to "astutely observe" things that we are then expected to believe. Here we have him making outlandish claims about homosexuality, and trying to make them seem like facts by expressing his opinions by means of a fake percentage.

You seem to agree he was actually wrong about this: you said "we now know there is a huge genetic component".

But on the other hand, we are expected to believe his claims about how conscience works... because according to you they are "astute observations".

It seems your corrupted text is once again dishonestly presented: since neither he nor you present any evidence, we have to make an estimation of his ability to make accurate claims. But claims that he made during his lifetime and that turned out to be wrong are removed.

I wonder if he would approve of such underhanded tactics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A huge genetic component you say? How huge? So big that the statement "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" can be considered wrong?

Why are you harping on this? This was not his claim. It didn't require data because that was not what he was trying to prove. I would have talked about how this could be used against him and maybe he would have changed his wording, but you have to realize that this had nothing to do with his claims which came from observation. Observation is one aspect of scientific methodology.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans seems to like percentages as a way of making his opinions appear more like facts. In partcular the 98% figure is his way of saying, 'almost everyone', or 'virtually all'. It crops up many times in his works:

But I only found two occurrences of 99%:

There is a section about interest rates that mention 4%, (10%, 15, 20, 25, 30%).

In other passages about taxes and finances I also found occurrences of 1%, 2%, 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 19%, 20%, 25%, 32%, 36%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%.

There are also lots of instances of 100% which is just a Lessans synonym for 'certain'.

98% of Lessans' statistics were made up bullshit.

(The other 2% were editorial insertions from the corrupter of authentic texts.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A huge genetic component you say? How huge? So big that the statement "98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love" can be considered wrong?

I already told you that this was not his claim. He was making a generalization. I believe he would have changed that sentence if he had known the grief it was going to cause.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

98% of Lessans' statistics were made up bullshit.

(The other 2% were editorial insertions from the corrupter of authentic texts.)

What the hell are you talking about now Spacemonkey? You're all washed up. He did not make up numbers. You just can't follow the math in the economic chapter. Don't blame him for that.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He believed that the environment had an influence, but we now know there is a huge genetic component.

Hm. That's interesting. How did we figure out that there is a "huge genetic component?" Sounds awfully science-y.

Stop misconstruing what he meant by this statement.

peacegirl, you are the only one construing this statement at all.

[But]