A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What's the upshot of all this? Let's stipulate, for argument's sake, that we always move toward greater satisfaction. What follows from that?

David, I have to thank you for trying to think about the implications. That is why I said some people stand on their own. You are one of them. This next demonstration has to do with Chapter Two. Are you willing to listen? I refuse to go forward unless there is a consensus of opinion that this is okay.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you to come in here without an ounce of understanding and espouse what has eluded you entirely? Tell me, what is the discovery? Since you know so much, it should be easy for you tell me without going back. That would be cheating.

I was pointing out an incorrect assumption of yours, namely that "blame and punishment are the very basis of our civilization", and I suggested that "Do unto others as you would have them unto you", leading to altruism and hence social cohesion has more to do with human social behaviour than the one your dad proposed. Your reply, when it eventually came ("Who are you to come in here without an ounce of understanding") is, shall we say, "interesting", a new way of not discussing the issues you brought up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add that I am so weirded out by this group experience (among many) that if someone said I confer with you completely, they would be rejected by the group.

A number of posters in this thread generally have views and beliefs not shared by the majority of the members, and would have no problem announcing it if they truly agreed with you.

Those that generally have views and beliefs they share with the majority would argue for you if they concurred with you, or would argue for the ideas presented in the book if they agreed with it. The only group pressure here is to present ideas clearly and support them well.

Do you see the pressure here? The most important thing in life is being accepted, so do see the problem this presents?

Giving in to peer pressure, and prioritizing "acceptance" by a group is for adolescents. I gave that up with passing notes to my BFF. Where do you get that it is the most important thing in life? I find that as odd as your "you hate me" and "you like me" that I mentioned earlier as well as your continued assumption that people listen to others all the time, the most recent example of which is "I hope people don't follow your lead" .

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I have to thank you for trying to think about the implications. That is why I said some people stand on their own. You are one of them. This next demonstration has to do with Chapter Two. Are you willing to listen? I refuse to go forward unless there is a consensus of opinion that this is okay.

Oh my GAWD, why does there need to be a consensus?

Tell davidm whatever it is you have to say and see what happens. You can't be any worse off, right?

[Sophia]

Originally Posted by Seraph

It is rather depressing to see people spending tens of thousands of hours on projects that are doomed from the outset because one or more of their pillars are invalid assumptions.

Of course, at least Catholic Europe has invented some neat little things like science as we know it, whereas, say, Jews never developed a scientific tradition of their own. Funny how Hollywood never talks about that, eh? Must be because so many of the execs and editors and screenwriters are... Amish. Yeah, that must be it. Whereas the Church abolished slavery, banned child marriage, kept average marital ages relatively high and maintained a relatively tolerant environment for women and homosexuals, Jews, when able to get away with it, continue to practice rigidly authoritarian forms of sex segregation and capital punishment for homosexuality.


Haredi pamphlet distributed in Jerusalem calling for the murder of homosexuals. The pamphlet shows how to make molotov cocktails and other lethal weapons and offers 20,000 NIS (about $4000) to anyone successfully murdering a homosexual.
I've shown this to Adam before; he showed no concern about the calls for the murder of homosexuals, but he did make fun of someone for having brain cancer. That's the mentality of a real psychopath, i.e., a man highly predisposed to commit rape.

Matthew Wagner of the Jerusalem Post called Edah Charedit head Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch to ask him about the above poster and Edah Charedit's position on violence against homosexuals. Rabbi Shternbuch replied:

"We must protest the desecration of the Holy Land," said Sternbuch in a phone interview. "But we must do it nonviolently." Sternbuch was responding to a pamphlet distributed in Jerusalem that promised a NIS 20,000 bounty for killing a homosexual. In addition to the bounty offer, the two-page pamphlet also provided directions complete with hand-drawn diagrams how to construct weapons that could be used to attack homosexuals.

The three preferred weapons were a Molotov cocktail, a rock-filled sock and a nail-studded stick. The Molotov cocktail was nicknamed a "Schlissel Special" and the stick was called a "Schlissel Spike." Both were named after Yishai Schlissel.

During last year's gay pride parade, Schlissel, a haredi resident of Jerusalem, used an 18-centimeter knife to stab three people, two 18-year-olds and one 50-year-old man. One was moderately wounded and two were lightly wounded.

Let's examine Rabbi Shtrernbuch's statement. As Matthew Wagners notes, Edah Charedit, the chief organization of haredim in Jerusalem, issued several notices as wall posters (pashkevillim) calling for the haredi public to:

"do everything in your power" to stop the march. However, Sternbuch denied that this implied the use of violence.

Often, the wording of the notices is not done by the rabbis. Rather, they sign a general statement that is later expanded into a detailed notice by aides or functionaries, explained an Eda Haredit source.

What we have here is an attempt at "plausible deniability." The "gedolim" issue statements that are clearly understood to be calls for violence. The second tier puts out the notices, and adds its own wording. The haredi street takes these even further.

Haredim base their views of homosexuality and homosexuals on the Torah, not on modern medicine, genetics and science. The Torah calls for the death of homosexuals. To issue notices calling on the haredi population to "do everything in your power," but not to warn in those same posters against using violence, is clear incitement to murder.

Death To Gays? - FailedMessiah.com

And so it is. Funny how around here, only a supposed "antisemite" is all that concerned about little Jewish girls being raped, or Jewish homosexuals facing murder. *sigh*

Many Jews, loyal first to people patriarchs of their tribe, will jump right to making excuses and disingenuous attempts at misdirection. Why pick on the Haredi when they are a minority? That is sheer nonsense. The Haredi already number well into the millions and they are amongst the most rapidly breeding population groups in the world. They are estimated to be a majority in Israel within a few decades. Their hyper-fecund lifestyle is literally financed with U.S. taxpayers' dollars. They get girls breeding early, and since most girls and young women aren't going to informedly consent to getting used by greasy old bearded men as breeding stock and sex slaves, it's fairly safe to say that in Haredi Ashkenazi culture, rape is the norm. Jewish "feminists": fx crickets

"'Majority of Jews will be Ultra-Orthodox by 2050'". University of Manchester. July 23, 2007. Archived from the original on 2008. 'Majority of Jews will be Ultra-Orthodox by 2050' (The University of Manchester). Retrieved 2008-05-22.

Some experts even estimate that this is likely to happen a great deal sooner than 2050.

All in my head, eh?

So yeah, I'm not going to respect any taboo on intelligent and open discussion of Jewish power. Many of you Jews claim to revel in breaking taboos, yet it's clear that you are the ones setting taboos and materially benefiting. The only 'taboos' you do break are half-assed at best; blaspheming Jesus may offend many people, but in present-day America it is about as brave as kicking a kitten. Now burn the Talmud and I'll be more impressed.

Some of you claimed that I just made up Jewish hyper-patriarchy. Tell that to the girls who are getting raped by rabbis right this very moment. Jewish patriarchs:

* Rabbis of the Edah HaChareidis rabbinical council of Jerusalem

Hashem Hu Malkeinu (minimalized English translation from Hebrew)

Hashem is our King and to him we are servants,
The Torah is our laws and unto it we are believers

Hashem is our King and to him we are servants,
The Holy Torah is our life and unto it we serve

To the Rule of the heretics (lit: Atheists) we are not believers,
We are not believers!

And its laws we do not honor,
we do not honor!

In the way of the Torah we walk,
through fire and water.
In the way of the Torah we walk, to sanctify the Holy Name.
Oy! To sanctify the Holy Name!

Authoritarian much? Nah, see, when the authoritarians are your guys, suddenly it's nothing for good Jews to be concerned about.

Anyway, unlike any Christian sect, these guys actually have massive power, wealth, and influence, and are further subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. Yet you'll waste your time criticizing some Christian hick for unproven "bigotry" but will turn around to attack those of us who criticize actual patriarchal authoritarianism.

Rabbinical court

The following lists prominent members of the Edah's rabbinical court:
Chief Rabbis

1. 1919–1932: Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (1849–1932)
2. 1932–1948: Grand Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky (I) of Dushinsky (1865–1949)
3. 1947–1953: Rabbi Zelig Reuven Bengis (1864–1953)
4. 1953–1979: Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of Satmar (1887–1979)
5. 1979–1989: Rabbi Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss (1901–1989; author of Minchas Yitzchak, formerly of Manchester Beth Din, England)
6. 1989–1996: Rabbi Moshe Aryeh Freund (1904–1996; author of Ateres Yehoshua (Chassidei Satmar)
7. 1996–2002: Grand Rabbi Yisroel Moshe Dushinsky (1921–2003; son of Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, listed above)
8. 2002 to present: Rabbi Yitzchok Tuvia Weiss (formerly dayan of Machsike Hadass community, Antwerp, Belgium)

Notice they're all men, without a single exception? Very bigoted homophobic and misogynist men, just to be clear.

And that's not even getting into...

* Rebbes of the Satmar Hasidim (originally Hungary, now New York)
* Rebbes of the Gerrer Hasidim (originally Poland, now Israel)
* Rebbes of Chabad-Lubavitch

Wiki is good enough on these three for now -- those articles are surprisingly well sourced, considered how Jewish bigots tend to sneak in and remove the sources. People are quick to reinstate them though.

Funny how on a supposed Freethought Forum this reality is otherwise so seldom -- about never -- brought up, and if someone is courageous enough to bring it up, that someone will be attacked, but Jewish ethno-supremacists, misogynists, and homophobes are not substantively criticized by FF's Jewish self-proclaimed 'freethinkers' at all. The evidence is consistent with the theory that many, likely most, Jewish males do not genuinely support e.g. equal rights for women or homosexuals, except insofar as they feel it benefits their own ethno-tribal power interests. As soon as they feel othewise, or a feminist or a gay rights activist asks the wrong questions, no matter how rational, many Jews are quick to reach for the Tanakh (aka OT), which prescribes female submission to their fathers and husbands as well as the death penalty for homosexuals.

Uh, let me know when you find a scene like this in Kansas. All those evil authoritarian Christian hicks out there, and you must be able to come up with something.



Oh yeah, a few rabbis wrote letters criticizing Israel's former rapist president. Many more rabbis have written letters defending him.

3 Zionist Rabbis Sign "Manifesto" Against Dozens Of Zionist Rabbis Who Wrote Fan Letter To Convicted Rapist - FailedMessiah.com



Haredi Rabbis Ban Denim Skirts, Blouses | FailedMessiah.com
Haredi court places curse on upcoming Jerusalem Gay Pride parade - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Haredi Kiruv Rabbi Advocates Suicide For Homosexuals - FailedMessiah.com

It's worth noting that although they're sometimes called "ultra" or "extreme," Haredi are Ashkenazi holding to basic Jewish law and tradition rather than being "antisemitic" enough to deviate from it. Jewish scripture by default commands the subjugation of women and the execution of homosexuals. Period.

And you say jack shit about it, because you're a hypocritical Jewish supremacist. You don't have a personal conscience, only nazi-like blind loyalty to tribe even at the expense of humanity. Liv can censor (e.g. through shame-oriented hiding in the Cloaca) my truth-telling here but she can't take it down from that new website, which is already being heavily promoted to gentile feminists, homosexuals, and many others. Thanks to you and ChuckF and of course the ever-'lovely' Liv for providing much of the inspiration.

[Hermit]

While we are into derails, I may as well reveal a revolutionary thought I just had to end all evil in the entire forum: We have peacegirl here, and now Sophia has dropped in. If we corral the rest of the jabbering forum members suffering from OCD, then sink the thread, we could resume discussing things or just having some fun.

[LadyShea]

Putting Sophia on ignore is helpful

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Putting Sophia on ignore is helpful

Yes, but not nearly as entertaining, she did call Doctor X a bigot.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Putting Sophia on ignore is helpful

Thanks for the suggestion, but I was just being flippant.

I discovered a revolutionary thought that will bring about the end of all wars. From the book being touted:

By completely
disarming a nation says in effect: “If you wish to attack us, hurt us,
rob us, murder us, please go right ahead without the slightest fear of
retaliation because we know that you are only obeying God’s will over
which you have no control, which compels us to excuse your actions
no matter how much you hurt us.” In other words, when a country
under attack announces that under no conditions will any retaliatory
measures be taken, the aggressor cannot desire to strike knowing there
will be no consequences for this unprovoked act. Remember, once a
nation disarms it will be sending a clear message to inform the world
that regardless of the harm that could come to its citizens, it will not
strike back, which prevents the desire to strike the very first blow.
Under these conditions it becomes impossible for the nation on the
offensive to attack when it is known in advance there will be no blame
or retaliation for this act of aggression. Let us observe, once again,
how the two-sided equation puts an end to further war.
The leaders know that if they give the command to strike they will
not be blamed for this terrible hurt. At this precise moment they also
know they don’t have to do what they are about to do, if they don’t
want to, for over this they have absolute control (you can lead a horse
to water but you can’t make him drink), and when it fully dawns on
them that the country under attack will be compelled to turn the
other cheek (regardless of what is done to hurt them), they will be
prevented from moving in this direction because they will be unable
to justify their actions. Remember, it becomes mathematically
impossible for a nation to strike when not to strike becomes the
preferable alternative. And how is it possible for them to desire
striking when they know they would be killing innocent people for
which there would be no blame or retaliation? It would be the worst
possible choice to strike under these conditions, therefore they would
be compelled to move in a different direction for satisfaction.

Brilliant, aye?

[Elouise]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seraph, you don't hold weight no matter what you are trying to achieve. You lose not because I want to be the winner, but because you don't have any weight to stand on.

Oh, I don't know .. he's a pretty sturdy guy ... Does your weight bring you dissatisfaction?


I think it's our preoccupation with and emphasis on good and evil that gives both such prominence in our behaviour. From the cradle (even as early as during pregnancy) we are endowed with value laden labels, described as either good or bad (naughty), an angelic child or a little devil, depending on our demeanor and behaviour and how that is interpreted by those who bestow the labels, without consideration of the surrounding issues, of why we are the way we are or do the things we do, nor the effect that such attitudes and labeling has upon the psyche. We carry that baggage around with us throughout our lives, accumulating more and more along the way. In our quest to divest ourselves of such a burden we must acknowledge that we are neither inherently good or bad, and reconstruct our sense of self from a perspective of who we are in relation to the natural world, not who we are in relation to the imposed values and ideals of others.

[LadyShea]

And how is it possible for them to desire striking when they know they would be killing innocent people for which there would be no blame or retaliation?

Off the top of my head they might desire power and control and not care who they kill or step on to get it.

[davidm]

...it becomes impossible for the nation on the
offensive to attack when it is known in advance there will be no blame or retaliation for this act of aggression.

Let's see if I understand this.

Nations attack other nations all the time when they know in advance that there WILL BE blame and retaliation. Blame, and retaliation in particular, can be a powerful disincentive to attack.

The above thesis states that it will be impossible for one nation to attack another, when the attacking nation knows in advance that, if it attacks, there will be NO blame or retaliation.

Erm... what???

On the contrary, it's very obvious that if one nation could attack another and in so doing incur no blame or retaliation, then that nation would attack in a heartbeat.

This is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever heard, excluding of course everything ever uttered by Sophia.

[Sophia]

I'm just glad I'm not on the side of cancer, genocide, and shit. I'm too open minded and have too much of a conscience to let Jewish-decreed political correctness rule my mind. I realize from reason and science that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, are genetically predisposed toward liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism and empathy. There's a taboo against gentiles discussing this topic, but that reflects a group evolutionary strategy to further enable the more aggressive and intelligent on average (though skewed in terms of intelligence profile, etc.) Jewish group rape the hell out of us. We're the actual oppressed, because we're the most, not least, empathetic and compassionate population group in the world, yet few are standing up for us; instead, we're getting used, abused, and raped.

Hey, it's an empirical fact backed up by scientific theory that when Scandinavia had native Scandinavians and only a few guests, rape, murder, FGM, etc., were barely even an issue. What little problem the very few serious criminals posed was getting eliminated through scientific eugenics. Of course, again, there's a Jewish imposed PC taboo on even the disussion of eugenics -- for gentiles. Jews practice selective breeding themselves and have for thousands of years. Yet unlike in most gentile groups, higher Jewish IQ does not go with higher empathy. In fact, they are low in empathy and high in ethnocentrism. So they're very dangerous.

I want a Europe, or for starters, at least a small independent state, where there will be no 'chosen' bigots stinking the place up, the OT and other supremacist literature won't be used to brainwash children, and in matters of morality, where practical, people will be free to go by their consciences rather than pharaisaical laws and punishments. Where we'll be able to love ourselves rather than hate ourselves and we'll be free to maintain a healthy majority, without oppressing anyone. And where all taboos will be rejected so that Reason and Right will prevail. Never again will someone get shouted down as a racist for calling a savage practice such as FGM savage. It is savage, and it's inferior to European tradition. That simple truth is more than anything else why although most all the power is against us right now, we'll ultimately win.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Assburgers

I'm just glad I'm not on the side of cancer, genocide, and shit. ..

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Seraph

I was pointing out an incorrect assumption of yours, namely that "blame and punishment are the very basis of our civilization", and I suggested that "Do unto others as you would have them unto you", leading to altruism and hence social cohesion has more to do with human social behaviour than the one your dad proposed. Your reply, when it eventually came ("Who are you to come in here without an ounce of understanding") is, shall we say, "interesting", a new way of not discussing the issues you brought up.

But the truth is blame and punishment are the basis of our civilation, for without it there would be chaos.

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages
of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no
forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by
helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those
who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on
living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of
civilization. However, in order to reach this stage of development
so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this
deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to
believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously
or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all
religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason
man was able to develop.

The belief in free will was compelled to
come about as a corollary of evil for not only was it impossible to
hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily
because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without
blame and punishment which required the justification of this
belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was
assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was
endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to choose
between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to
pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way
you would have to believe that he was free to choose another
alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was
not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was
given no choice but to think this way and that is why our
civilization developed the principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one
could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free
it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for
anything he does.

Well, is it any wonder the solution was never
found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame
people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale
slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to
condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his
nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired
badly enough he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even
pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What
is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking
what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will
is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization.
Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution
that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial.
Although free will has had a very long reign in the history of
civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first
demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A friend
shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get
through this established dogma.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sophia

I'm just glad I'm not on the side of cancer, genocide, and shit. I'm too open minded and have too much of a conscience to let Jewish-decreed political correctness rule my mind. I realize from reason and science that Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, are genetically predisposed toward liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism and empathy. There's a taboo against gentiles discussing this topic, but that reflects a group evolutionary strategy to further enable the more aggressive and intelligent on average (though skewed in terms of intelligence profile, etc.) Jewish group rape the hell out of us. We're the actual oppressed, because we're the most, not least, empathetic and compassionate population group in the world, yet few are standing up for us; instead, we're getting used, abused, and raped.

Hey, it's an empirical fact backed up by scientific theory that when Scandinavia had native Scandinavians and only a few guests, rape, murder, FGM, etc., were barely even an issue. What little problem the very few serious criminals posed was getting eliminated through scientific eugenics. Of course, again, there's a Jewish imposed PC taboo on even the disussion of eugenics -- for gentiles. Jews practice selective breeding themselves and have for thousands of years. Yet unlike in most gentile groups, higher Jewish IQ does not go with higher empathy. In fact, they are low in empathy and high in ethnocentrism. So they're very dangerous.

I want a Europe, or for starters, at least a small independent state, where there will be no 'chosen' bigots stinking the place up, the OT and other supremacist literature won't be used to brainwash children, and in matters of morality, where practical, people will be free to go by their consciences rather than pharaisaical laws and punishments. Where we'll be able to love ourselves rather than hate ourselves and we'll be free to maintain a healthy majority, without oppressing anyone. And where all taboos will be rejected so that Reason and Right will prevail. Never again will someone get shouted down as a racist for calling a savage practice such as FGM savage. It is savage, and it's inferior to European tradition. That simple truth is more than anything else why although most all the power is against us right now, we'll ultimately win.

This discovery has nothing to do with us against them mentality. There is no bigotry, hatred, or specially chosen. You must have mistakenly come to the wrong thread.

[Elouise]

Originally Posted by Sophia

I'm too open minded

ahhh .. that would explain the escape of brain substance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let's see if I understand this.

Nations attack other nations all the time when they know in advance that there WILL BE blame and retaliation. Blame, and retaliation in particular, can be a powerful disincentive to attack.

The above thesis states that it will be impossible for one nation to attack another, when the attacking nation knows in advance that, if it attacks, there will be NO blame or retaliation.

Erm... what???

On the contrary, it's very obvious that if one nation could attack another and in so doing incur no blame or retaliation, then that nation would attack in a heartbeat.

This is the stupidest fucking argument I've ever heard, excluding of course everything ever uttered by Sophia.

David, you have done what Lessans pleaded everyone not to do. You have taken it upon yourself to open the book at random, pull an excerpt out of context, and you dare tell me you know what this chapter is about when you haven't even understood the very core of this discovery? Is this the kind of methodology good scientists use? I don't think so. I can really see that people left alone with this book are going to get all confused, even though the foreword and introduction explicity stated that the first two chapters must be studied thoroughly before continuing. So much for listening to directions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh my GAWD, why does there need to be a consensus?

Tell davidm whatever it is you have to say and see what happens. You can't be any worse off, right?

It seems a bit incredable to me that this thread has gone on for 25 pages with no end in sight. Every counter argument for Peacegirl's position is met with something no more sophisticated than "No it's not" or "Yes it is" depending on the particular post. The other common response is "It's in the Book" which reminds me,

YouTube - "It's in the Book" -...

I think you might enjoy this, makes a bit more sense than peacegirls arguments.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the truth is blame and punishment are the basis of our civilation, for without it there would be chaos.

In the beginning of creation when man was in the early stages
of development, he could have destroyed himself were there no
forces to control his nature. Religion came to the rescue by
helping explain the reason for such evil in the world. It gave those
who had faith a sense of comfort, hope, and the fortitude to go on
living. In spite of everything, it was a bright light in the story of
civilization. However, in order to reach this stage of development
so God could reveal Himself to all mankind by performing this
deliverance from evil, it was absolutely necessary to get man to
believe his will was free, and he believed in this theory consciously
or unconsciously. It became a dogma, a dogmatic doctrine of all
religion, was the cornerstone of all civilization, and the only reason
man was able to develop.

The belief in free will was compelled to
come about as a corollary of evil for not only was it impossible to
hold God responsible for man’s deliberate crimes, but primarily
because it was impossible for man to solve his problems without
blame and punishment which required the justification of this
belief in order to absolve his conscience. Therefore, it was
assumed that man did not have to do what he did because he was
endowed with a special faculty which allowed him to choose
between good and evil. In other words, if you were called upon to
pass judgment on someone by sentencing him to death, could you
do it if you knew his will was not free? To punish him in any way
you would have to believe that he was free to choose another
alternative than the one for which he was being judged; that he was
not compelled by laws over which he had no control. Man was
given no choice but to think this way and that is why our
civilization developed the principle of an ‘eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth’ and why my discovery was never found. No one
could ever get beyond this point because if man’s will is not free
it becomes absolutely impossible to hold him responsible for
anything he does.

Well, is it any wonder the solution was never
found if it lies beyond this point? How is it possible not to blame
people for committing murder, rape, for stealing and the wholesale
slaughter of millions? Does this mean that we are supposed to
condone these evils, and wouldn’t man become even less
responsible if there were no laws of punishment to control his
nature? Doesn’t our history show that if something is desired
badly enough he will go to any lengths to satisfy himself, even
pounce down on other nations with talons or tons of steel? What
is it that prevents the poor from walking into stores and taking
what they need if not the fear of punishment? The belief that will
is not free strikes at the very heart of our present civilization.
Right at this point lies the crux of a problem so difficult of solution
that it has kept free will in power since time immemorial.
Although free will has had a very long reign in the history of
civilization, it is now time to put it to rest, once and for all, by first
demonstrating that this theory can never be proven true. A friend
shared a story with me to show you how difficult it is to get
through this established dogma.

Very scientific, that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Off the top of my head they might desire power and control and not care who they kill or step on to get it.

LadyShea, if this is supposed to be one of the smartest philosophy forums on the internet, I need to rest my case. It's not because you all aren't smart, but the people here and on the other [philosophy] forums are so full of themselves that they refuse to read the first two chapters (because it's below them), or they just don't read carefully enough. I cannot continue if people are going to do what the author urged not to do. They then come back with such utter nonsense as a refutation that they think they have proven him wrong when they have done no such thing. I know no one cares anyway, so no one need come back and say, you can go then.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Off the top of my head they might desire power and control and not care who they kill or step on to get it.

I believe China demonstrated this very clearly whan they took over Tibet.

[Elouise]

Originally Posted by Sophia

Of course, at least Catholic Europe has invented some neat little things like science as we know it, whereas, say, Jews never developed a scientific tradition of their own.

I wouldn't give Catholic Europe so much credit.

And what have you added to science, Sophia?


And ... to be less snarky and more to the real point, what's your cultural history?

[peacegirl]

Seraph, I do not want to engage in a discussion with you because you are the epitome of someone who thinks they know it all. I must be one of those prejudice Jews who haven't given you a fair chance.

[Elouise]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, if this is supposed to be one of the smartest philosophy forums on the internet, I need to plead my case. It's not because you all aren't smart, but the people here and on the other [philosophy] forums are so full of themselves that they refuse to read the first two chapters (because it's below them), or they just don't read carefully enough. I cannot continue if people are going to do what the author urged not to do. They then come back with such utter nonsense as a refutation that they think they have proven him wrong when they have done no such thing. I know no one cares anyway, so no one need come back and say, you can go then.

I see you like that "full of yourself/themselves" phrase. Is that more satisfying than your weight issue?