A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have been trying to find anything they can in an effort to discredit him and it's not working.

Actually, it is working wonderfully well. His credit score is in negative numbers.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued. If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it.

Off the cuff, are you serious? Off the cuff statements are spontaneous utterances that occur in the course of a conversation or even an impromptu or extemporaneous speech. They are not the sort of things that one writes down in a book (much less in a book that has undergone multiple revisions by the author) after careful and deliberate consideration.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not hostile to it. I believe he said this to show that when the environmental conditions change no one will be left out when it comes to finding a mate. He probably didn't realize that this would be scrutinized to the point where people would become suspicious over the accuracy of his discoveries. The bottom line is that regardless of ones sexual preference, people will stay together until death do they part due to the changes in the environment and the application of these principles.

Bold mine. See how that works PG? I am pointing out that I changed something in your text so people do not get the wrong idea and think it was you. It is generally considered a good idea.

Thing is - he complained about people NOT scrutinizing over the accuracy of the discoveries he claimed to have made. And then, when people DO investigate his claims, and ask "why should we believe this is true?" you get all bent out of shape. You are so defensive you will happily cut whole pieces out even. Talk about advance blaming!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued. If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it. He would have used the scientific method of testing his claim in this fashion. But he could not use this same method to prove that his discoveries are true. That does not mean they're not valid.

The problem is that you are asking us to believe he was able to perceive how things work without a verifiable method - that he just had astute observations. But it turns out that when you do not agree with what he perceived, you just cut it out of the book.

This means your book is just your own view of your dad. Your own personal biases. At this stage we do not just need to believe your father could perceive absolute truth directly. We need to believe that sometimes he did not, and got it wrong, but that you can tell when this was happening, and corrected the book accordingly.

Now we need to believe in two "astute observers"... people who can spot truth without any verifiable method.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I took out the part on homosexuality because it wasn't necessary and could be misconstrued.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And because you think it is factually wrong. You seem to be having incredible difficulty admitting this simple fact.

He didn't say this was the only reason. He was making the point that everyone will be able to find love. I think it got lost in the translation. I do not have difficulty with the fact that it would have been better if he had left it out because people are using anything they can against him. This has absolutely nothing to do with his discoveries and the support for his claims --- not with data that support a hypothesis, but with his astute observations. I have said over and over that the empirical proof will come when these principles are put to the test.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He didn't give data anywhere else in his book in support of any of his other claims. So again, how do you tell which of his claims were non-serious off-the-cuff unsupported assertions to be deleted, and which were 100% accurate astute observations to be retained? As editor and co-author, how did you make these distinctions?

You're making a terrible comparison and you're doing it because you don't like his claims. You don't believe they are supported because you don't believe conscience works the way it does. And forget about the eyes. I don't want to get into that again. Only time will tell who is right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would have used the scientific method of testing his claim in this fashion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do you know that? Did he use the scientific method anywhere else?

No, he didn't. It didn't lend itself to this kind of testing. Every person will be able to see for himself whether these principles would work in their own life. If you're honest with yourself, you would see that you could never strike a first blow under the changed conditions because it would give you less satisfaction, not more. You have to remember that all hurt (which shows up in many different forms) must be removed before these principles can work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem is that you are asking us to believe he was able to perceive how things work without a verifiable method - that he just had astute observations. But it turns out that when you do not agree with what he perceived, you just cut it out of the book.

It's not that I didn't agree with what he perceived. It just wasn't important enough to keep this can of worms in the book. Look what's happening now? It's exactly what I didn't want. This excerpt has only caused confusion and an attack on his entire body of work, and for what? People are reading into this excerpt something he didn't intend.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This means your book is just your own view of your dad. Your own personal biases. At this stage we do not just need to believe your father could perceive absolute truth directly. We need to believe that sometimes he did not, and got it wrong, but that you can tell when this was happening, and corrected the book accordingly.

Now we need to believe in two "astute observers"... people who can spot truth without any verifiable method.

That's not what I did. I did not correct the book accordingly. I just didn't think talking about homosexuality in one or two sentences was a safe thing to do. And I was right. He would have taken that part out himself if he had to do it over again because he would have realized people are going to misinterpret what he meant.

[But]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not hostile to it. I believe he said this to show that when the environmental conditions change no one will be left out when it comes to finding a mate. He probably didn't realize that this would be scrutinized to the point where people would become suspicious over the accuracy of his discoveries. The bottom line is that regardless of ones sexual preference, people will stay together until death do they part due to the changes in the environment and the application of these principles.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Bold mine. See how that works PG? I am pointing out that I changed something in your text so people do not get the wrong idea and think it was you. It is generally considered a good idea.

You're right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thing is - he complained about people NOT scrutinizing over the accuracy of the discoveries he claimed to have made. And then, when people DO investigate his claims, and ask "why should we believe this is true?" you get all bent out of shape. You are so defensive you will happily cut whole pieces out even. Talk about advance blaming!

You're very confused about advance blame. Advance blame is when I ask you do something and when you don't, I blame you for not doing it. I just hope that people don't give up on this major discovery because of the false things said about him.

BTW, I did not cut whole pieces out. I left out the explicit parts and the one part on homosexuality. I did not change any of the concepts. I compiled all of his books so people would get 7 books in 1.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say this was the only reason. He was making the point that everyone will be able to find love. I think it got lost in the translation. I do not have difficulty with the fact that it would have been better if he had left it out because people are using anything they can against him. This has absolutely nothing to do with his discoveries and the support for his claims --- not with data that support a hypothesis, but with his astute observations. I have said over and over that the empirical proof will come when these principles are put to the test.

You took out his comments on homosexuality because you think he was wrong. There's no need for you to be shy about this. You are right. He was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making a terrible comparison and you're doing it because you don't like his claims. You don't believe they are supported because you don't believe conscience works the way it does. And forget about the eyes. I don't want to get into that again. Only time will tell who is right.

I wasn't making any comparison. I'm simply asking you how you managed to distinguish between his incorrect and unsupported claims that you chose to remove, and his 100% accurate astute observations which you retained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he didn't. It didn't lend itself to this kind of testing. Every person will be able to see for himself whether these principles would work in their own life. If you're honest with yourself, you would see that you could never strike a first blow under the changed conditions because it would give you less satisfaction, not more. You have to remember that all hurt (which shows up in many different forms) must be removed before these principles can work.

So on what basis do you claim that he would have used a method that he never in fact used?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's not my job. All that is required is that Lessans' claim be validated. If his claim turns out to be sound, then it's up to scientists to figure out what else could be causing the difference in timing in the eclipse. I really don't see a problem with spacecraft navigation. We already went through this.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are reading into this excerpt something he didn't intend.

Who is doing that? How are they reading it? What did he intend?

"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."

The claim is clear enough: "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."

Now: what is the factual basis for this claim? What data support this claim?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not my job. All that is required is that Lessans' claim be validated. If his claim turns out to be sound, then it's up to scientists to figure out what else could be causing the difference in timing in the eclipse. I really don't see a problem with spacecraft navigation. We already went through this.

But it is not going to be validated, nor will scientists be interested in it, so long as it remains refuted by plain and incontrovertible evidence like the moons of Jupiter and the fact that photons can't be somewhere before getting there.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not my job. All that is required is that Lessans' claim be validated. If his claim turns out to be sound, then it's up to scientists to figure out what else could be causing the difference in timing in the eclipse. I really don't see a problem with spacecraft navigation. We already went through this.

You didn't answer the questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say this was the only reason. He was making the point that everyone will be able to find love. I think it got lost in the translation. I do not have difficulty with the fact that it would have been better if he had left it out because people are using anything they can against him. This has absolutely nothing to do with his discoveries and the support for his claims --- not with data that support a hypothesis, but with his astute observations. I have said over and over that the empirical proof will come when these principles are put to the test.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You took out his comments on homosexuality because you think he was wrong. There's no need for you to be shy about this. You are right. He was wrong.

That's not why I took it out Spacemonkey. Don't put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this was a serious claim rather than an off the cuff statement to make a point, he would have given data to support it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He didn't give data anywhere else in his book in support of any of his other claims. So again, how do you tell which of his claims were non-serious off-the-cuff unsupported assertions to be deleted, and which were 100% accurate astute observations to be retained? As editor and co-author, how did you make these distinctions?

You're making a terrible comparison and you're doing it because you don't like his claims. You don't believe they are supported because you don't believe conscience works the way it does. And forget about the eyes. I don't want to get into that again. Only time will tell who is right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I wasn't making any comparison. I'm simply asking you how you managed to distinguish between his incorrect and unsupported claims that you chose to remove, and his 100% accurate astute observations which you retained.

I will say this one last time. I did not take out the homosexual part because I thought he was wrong. I don't think bringing up homosexuality would be a good thing to do considering how emotional the whole issue is. His discoveries were absolutely sound. Those are the ones that he laid claim to and those are the claims that we are discussing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he didn't. It didn't lend itself to this kind of testing. Every person will be able to see for himself whether these principles would work in their own life. If you're honest with yourself, you would see that you could never strike a first blow under the changed conditions because it would give you less satisfaction, not more. You have to remember that all hurt (which shows up in many different forms) must be removed before these principles can work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So on what basis do you claim that he would have used a method that he never in fact used?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating Spacemonkey. That is the ultimate empirical proof. We can argue and argue until the cows come home, but until this knowledge is applied, we will never know how amazing these principles truly are, will we? Wow, for the last two posts you've actually been civil.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You didn't answer the questions.

No, I haven't figured out yet what's going on with the moons of Jupiter.

How do space probes navigate large distances with such accuracy and how do the mission controllers know when they've reached their target? - Scientific American

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say this one last time. I did not take out the homosexual part because I thought he was wrong. I don't think bringing up homosexuality would be a good thing to do considering how emotional the whole issue is. His discoveries were absolutely sound. Those are the ones that he laid claim to and those are the claims that we are discussing.

peacegirl, who is being "emotional" about this? Indeed, this could not be less emotional - what is the factual basis for this claim? What data support this claim?

The question is entirely factual. This is how claims are evaluated for truth value. You have stated that you believe this statement is true - what is the factual basis of that belief? What data support the truth of the claim?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I haven't figured out yet what's going on with the moons of Jupiter.

How do space probes navigate large distances with such accuracy and how do the mission controllers know when they've reached their target? - Scientific American

Peacegirl, all these measurements are done with a combination of radio transmissions (at c) and via visual location based on light (which also travels at c). All the measurements match up which means that all the observations are made and the position corrected based on the light and radio signals (both part of the electromagnetic spectrum) traveling to Earth at c. Nowhere in this process does anyone assume that vision is instant, as that would throw the location off by a great distance, and controllers still achieve great accuracy by assuming that light takes time to arrive. But as you are sure to point out, "something else is going on".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why I took it out Spacemonkey. Don't put words in my mouth.

I will say this one last time. I did not take out the homosexual part because I thought he was wrong.

Do you think he was right, then, to claim that the vast majority of homosexuals are so because of denied heterosexual indulgence?

Or are you saying he was indeed wrong, but you took the passage out for reasons other than its wrongness?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, for the last two posts you've actually been civil.

Go fuck yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I haven't figured out yet what's going on with the moons of Jupiter.

Have you figured out yet what traveling your magical photons have done? Or when they could have been located at the Sun?

Have you figured out yet how to upload a photo?

[thedoc]

More to the point, has anyone figured out how Peacegirl can be so willfully ignorant, in the face of overwhelming evidence against her, for almost 15 years of trying on the internet? I have astutely observed that on one forum, where she appeared to be getting some support for her ideas, she bailed as soon as that support seemed to be manifest. The only conclusion that I can determine is that Peacegirl has an acute martyr complex, and seeks out the hostility and abuse, rather than anyone who shows any support for her ideas. Even when someone shows a slight inclination for any of those ideas, she manages to alienate them so that they no longer support her position, even if she has to lead the discussion to an area where they don't support her ideas.

[Vivisectus]

It's not that I didn't agree with what he perceived. It just wasn't important enough to keep this can of worms in the book. Look what's happening now? It's exactly what I didn't want. This excerpt has only caused confusion and an attack on his entire body of work, and for what? People are reading into this excerpt something he didn't intend.

Ah so you do believe "98% of homosexual relations" are engaged in by frustrated heteros that can't get a date, but you left it out because you felt it was unpopular?

Same difference really.

That's not what I did. I did not correct the book accordingly. I just didn't think talking about homosexuality in one or two sentences was a safe thing to do. And I was right. He would have taken that part out himself if he had to do it over again because he would have realized people are going to misinterpret what he meant.

So that is exactly what you did: you removed stuff based on your your own ideas of what would go down well.

[Vivisectus]

It is very confusing. On the one hand we now know that there is "a huge genetic component", so that makes 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" counterfactual: nothing about the new system is going to change anyone's genetic make-up.

But on the other hand PG does not disagree with the statement (as the author perceived it), but just felt it would be a bit of a can of worms, and that is why she left it out.

Peacegirl, you seem to both agree and disagree with a statement here. Do you find that happens to you often?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, who is being "emotional" about this? Indeed, this could not be less emotional - what is the factual basis for this claim? What data support this claim?

The question is entirely factual. This is how claims are evaluated for truth value. You have stated that you believe this statement is true - what is the factual basis of that belief? What data support the truth of the claim?

I said that he didn't make a truth claim. He used the term 98% to mean "a lot". He said 98% of mankind believes in free will. He didn't mean it to be an exact figure. He used that percentage to make a point that the majority believe in free will. I believe if he had to do it all over again, he would not have made this comment about homosexuality because he would have realized that people would go after him for this. He wasn't perfect Chuck. He was a human being who sometimes made mistakes. You are using this to discredit his discoveries by saying he could have been wrong about them as well. He wasn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you think he was right, then, to claim that the vast majority of homosexuals are so because of denied heterosexual indulgence?

Or are you saying he was indeed wrong, but you took the passage out for reasons other than its wrongness?

Go fuck yourself.

Well that ruins it for today.