A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If it were not true I am sure the Internet Checkers would have promptly brought that fact to our attention.

Granted, that was a silly comment. I said it when I was naive and new to the internet. So use it to make fun of me as you all love to do!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Granted, that was a silly comment. I said it when I was naive and new to the internet. So use it to make fun of me as you all love to do!

But you believed it to be true at the time, just as you believe that what your father wrote is true. You are still naive enough to believe that your father's book is a true depiction of reality, and silly enough to continue to support that belief. That is why people make fun of you.

[ChuckF]

[Florence Jellem]

Help Flo out here, boys. Hasn't peacegirl spent years arguing that Einstein was wrong, and linking to all sorts of people that claim he was wrong?

But now, here, in the Authentic Test, Lessans definitively states that Einstein was right!

So confusing, my goodness!

Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Of course Einstein was right in regard to his proven discoveries (which Lessans referred to), but that doesn't mean the GPS system is dependent on general relativity!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course Einstein was right in regard to his proven discoveries (which Lessans referred to)

Even now, you scheme to Corrupt the Authentic Text before our very eyes.

I cannot blame you for it, peacegirl.

However, there is no truer way to rectify your Corruption than the Authentic Text in the hands of me, its True Steward.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course Einstein was right in regard to his proven discoveries (which Lessans referred to), but that doesn't mean the GPS system is dependent on general relativity!

Except that since Einstein is right, real-time seeing is wrong, dear.

Are you ready for your dunce cap now?

[Florence Jellem]

Let's bear in mind, dear, that you spent years in this very forum trying to debunk and reject Einstein's "proven discoveries" -- the special and general theories of relativity. Don't you remember doing that? Or has the hooch left your brain a soggy, decomposing sponge?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Except that since Einstein is right, real-time seeing is wrong, dear.

Are you ready for your dunce cap down?

No, but you are: the one who believes in time machines, 4th dimensions, and free will.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Granted, that was a silly comment. I said it when I was naive and new to the internet. So use it to make fun of me as you all love to do!

peacegirl, your internet posting history goes back at least to 2003. You made the internet checkers comment in 2011, when you were an eight-year veteran of internet message boards.

You're lying. Again.

Chuck, I realize we can't blame peacegirl since making every goddamn word that drops from her dissembling bon-bon hole a boohogishly massive lie is her path of greater satisfaction. I was wondering, though - what does the Authentic Text have to say about habitual liars? The Corrupted Text speaks of compulsory mental hospitalization for people who can't shake the desire to strike a first blow. Does the Authentic Text have anything to say along those lines with regard to Trumpesque liars like peacegirl?

[ChuckF]

Indeed, we would be compelled to investigate the possibility that she is mentally sick. If such was the case, and she needed treatment of some kind, we would withdraw her card until she is well, at which time she would have a deficit for the amount of money we advanced her to pay her creditors and sustain her standard of living.

It is interesting that in the New World, costs incurred in providing funds to sustain the standard of living those who cannot work are expected to be repaid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Indeed, we would be compelled to investigate the possibility that she is mentally sick. If such was the case, and she needed treatment of some kind, we would withdraw her card until she is well, at which time she would have a deficit for the amount of money we advanced her to pay her creditors and sustain her standard of living.

It is interesting that in the New World, costs incurred in providing funds to sustain the standard of living those who cannot work are expected to be repaid.

You have an earlier version. Anyone who needs help because they can't meet their standard of living would not have to pay it back.

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

It is interesting that in the New World, costs incurred in providing funds to sustain the standard of living those who cannot work are expected to be repaid.

No wonder she corrupted the Authentic Text to state that one may contract The Vapors and live off other people's money in perpetuity. Repayment suggests work, and peacegirl and work are like like oil and water or dogs and imaginary levers.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have an earlier version.

And you have your $41.00 Corrupted Text, peacegirl.

Anyone who needs help because they can't meet their standard of living would not have to pay it back.

Even now you Corrupt the Authentic Text! I cannot blame you for your hurt to the Authentic Text, peacegirl, but it is my nature as the True Steward of the Authentic Text to be compelled of my own free will to correct this Corruption.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but you are: the one who believes in time machines, 4th dimensions, and free will.

Peacegirl, dear, you now admit -- after years of arguing otherwise -- that Einstein's special and general theories of relativity are "proven discoveries." If they are "proven discoveries," why are you even now arguing against discoveries you admit are proven?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

And you have your $41.00 Corrupted Text, peacegirl.

Even now you Corrupt the Authentic Text! I cannot blame you for your hurt to the Authentic Text, peacegirl, but it is my nature as the True Steward of the Authentic Text to be compelled of my own free will to correct this Corruption.

He changed it and later told me that anyone who fell below their standard of living would be given the difference and not have to pay it back.

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He changed it and later told me that anyone who fell below their standard of living would be given the difference and not have to pay it back.

peacegirl, your Corruptions do not interest.

We reject your Corrupted Text, which you hawk for profit online. We interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. I am compelled of my own free will to be the True Steward of the Authentic Text; just as 3 is to 6 as 4 is to 8, this reality of my True Stewardship is mathematical and undeniable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He changed it and later told me that anyone who fell below their standard of living would be given the difference and not have to pay it back.

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

And where is that money coming from, considering all the people who will be out of work?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am basing my belief that he is right by his observations regarding the eyes. I'm sorry that it conflicts with the mainstream view, but that's life.

So you are basing your belief that he is right (not what we were talking about) on the fact that he said so. Well, we already knew that.

In 6 years you have never been able to explain why we should assume it is true - apart of course from the famous Argument from Dog Sight.

Which is no reason to believe it is true. Even if you are correct about dogs, it is merely compatible. Dogs could be totally face-blind without efferent sight.

But of course this, while amusing, is neither here nor there. What we were discussing is the fact you are doing the exact thing the book warns about: proclaiming things as absolute truth when you are just basing it on an assumption. Where sight is concerned, there were to contradictory statements regarding the thought experiment where we turn on the sun at noon. you assume the specific passage you picked was correct.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And where is that money coming from, considering all the people who will be out of work?

I should point out that there have been various proposals for alleviating poverty that consist of simply giving people money. Milton Friedman, for example (yes, that Milton Friedman), proposed a negative income tax that would result in the poorest members of society being effectively given money (to be clear, his proposal was as a replacement for existing welfare programmes and he stopped short of advocating for alleviating income inequality). Many other economists, including some others on the right such as Friedrich von Hayek, have made similar proposals.

The idea of a basic income, in which everyone is paid enough to live on (usually funded by taxes on the rich), has been around for a long time and has been tried to varying degrees of success, but one constant has been that cynics' predictions that people would stop working have not proven accurate, because, as it turns out, most people (i.e., not peacegirl) don't feel fulfilled if they're not doing anything. When the Mincome programme was rolled out in rural Manitoba, for example, the results were that very few people stopped working, and those who did were almost exclusively new mothers or students who had been working to supplement their family's income or their own.

However, I know all of this because I have a degree in political science and have studied the economy at some length. I severely doubt either peacegirl or Lessans have thought this through, nor would they have the first idea where to begin acquiring information about these kinds of things if they wanted to.

[Vivisectus]

He changed it and later told me that anyone who fell below their standard of living would be given the difference and not have to pay it back.

He told you? So now we have to rely on your memory of what your father said once? When the original text happens to contradict what you like?

What does it say about this in your book? And even if we assume this is not something you changed (which we have no way of confirming), how about the fact that he writes one thing in one book, and then the opposite in another?

Not just something subtly different. The opposite! Would the discoverer of mathematical relations, which are as undeniable as the fact that 1+1=2, make errors to such a degree that he ended up flatly contradicting himself? Without any comment about why he suddenly changed his mind to such an extent? Or is this something you changed because it suits you better? And how can we ever be certain?

These inconsistencies are really starting to add up now.

Again, probably better to just read the original. At least we are certain they are the authors own words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Except that since Einstein is right, real-time seeing is wrong, dear.

Are you ready for your dunce cap now?

David, something must be wrong with your comprehension. THAT WAS THE OLD VERSION. He talked to me about it and said that no citizen who needed money to sustain their standard of living (even if they were mentally ill) would not have to pay the money back! What is it you don't understand? The reason they would have to take his card away temporarily is because he would be unknowingly taking advantage. No one would be able to cheat the system with this kind of arrangement unless they were mentally ill. But mental illness will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth once a new generation is born into the new world.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THAT WAS THE OLD VERSION.

Yes - it is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. It is free of all the Corruptions you have done to the Corrupted Text that you now hawk for sale online.

We reject your Corrupted Text. What don't you understand, peacegirl?

But, peacegirl, haven't you been claiming that you don't care which version one reads?

Suddenly you are less demur about your rejection of the Authentic Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He told you? So now we have to rely on your memory of what your father said once? When the original text happens to contradict what you like?

What does it say about this in your book? And even if we assume this is not something you changed (which we have no way of confirming), how about the fact that he writes one thing in one book, and then the opposite in another?

Not just something subtly different. The opposite! Would the discoverer of mathematical relations, which are as undeniable as the fact that 1+1=2, make errors to such a degree that he ended up flatly contradicting himself? Without any comment about why he suddenly changed his mind to such an extent? Or is this something you changed because it suits you better? And how can we ever be certain?

These inconsistencies are really starting to add up now.

Again, probably better to just read the original. At least we are certain they are the authors own words.

No inconsistencies are adding up except in your mind. It is true that early on he wrote some things that were changed later. We're talking about a 20 year gap. He did not change the core discovery. He just changed some of the extension of the principles. I remember him vividly sharing with me that money given to citizens who could not meet their standard of living would not have to pay it back. It took him a long time to work out the economic system so there were bound to be some changes. I, as the true steward, never forgot this conversation he had with me. Even when this discovery is acclaimed, certain things will be analyzed and tweaked in the extension. For example, it will be carefully analyzed to determine what is a true hurt. Citizens would want to know what these hurts are, as they would not desire to strike a first blow (an unprovoked hurt to someone) knowing they would never be blamed. You still have no conception of the two-sided equation which is why you are balking at everything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Man

I should point out that there have been various proposals for alleviating poverty that consist of simply giving people money. Milton Friedman, for example (yes, that Milton Friedman), proposed a negative income tax that would result in the poorest members of society being effectively given money (to be clear, his proposal was as a replacement for existing welfare programmes and he stopped short of advocating for alleviating income inequality). Many other economists, including some others in the right such as Friedrich von Hayek, have made similar proposals.

The idea of a basic income, in which everyone is paid enough to live on (usually funded by taxes on the rich), has been around for a long time and has been tried to varying degrees of success, but one constant has been that cynics' predictions that people would stop working have not proven accurate, because, as it turns out, people don't feel fulfilled if they're not doing anything. When the Mincome programme was rolled out in rural Manitoba, for example, the results were that very few people stopped working, and those who did were almost exclusively new mothers or students who had been working to supplement their family's income or their own.

However, I know all of this because I have a degree in political science and have studied the economy at some length. I severely doubt either peacegirl or Lessans have thought this through, nor would they have the first idea where to begin acquiring information about these kinds of things if they wanted to.

You are assuming that because others didn't have an answer, Lessans couldn't. Isn't that placing the cart before the horse? You have no understanding of this discovery whatsoever. Why do you think he put this in the introduction?

It is true that many men before me, including socialists,
communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the
cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and
their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own.
However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief.

In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah, and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words. “But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by anyone
anywhere.” “But,” you might reply, “that’s just common sense;
everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that sense
common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this book.

It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not only by
those who can read the English language, but by the entire literate
world. There will be no sleight of hand revelation as is dreamed up in
philosophical circles by epistemologists; only a clear undeniable
explanation about facts of man’s nature never before understood.
Knowledge in this context is to truly know ourselves. If you are
coming along on this journey you will need to put on your thinking
caps and try to understand the mathematical relations soon to be
revealed which permit you to see this miracle.