A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
Giving prescriptions for just about every ailment under the sun is a big problem in today's society.

No one really knows the long term effects of many of these drugs. We're all guinea pigs.

Hmmm, It's a good bet Peacegirl isn't taking her med's, that would explain a lot.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was to show her son that when you call in a doctor, they will most likely give you medicine, even if they don't know what the source of the problem is, because that is what they have been trained to do, and that's how they earn a living.

I can see where he got his talent for drawing illogical conclusions from.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My conscience wouldn't permit it.

You are hawking this book, and yet claiming to have a conscience, that is a complete contradiction.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one really knows the long term effects of many of these drugs. We're all guinea pigs.

...and obviously this ignorance that you claim (accurately where you yourself are concerned) is a good reason to draw the conclusion "Therefor medicine is probably bad".

So you are saying that something that you claim no-one knows is good grounds for avoiding medicine, which does have benefits that we can measure? So the possibility of bad results on the basis of no knowledge should make you avoid something with proven benefits?

I can see how this book seems like a work of genius to you. I never thought it was possible, but your own ideas are actually even less well supported.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These quotes were not published, and for the most part I gave everyone credit where I could. I admit that all of my sentences did not come from my originality. Now what? Do you throw out the book? Do you put me in prison for dishonesty? What would you like me to do to pay for my mistake?

Originally Posted by Wildernesse

If the quotes were not published, then how did you find them to include in the book?

They were published on the internet, but they weren't in a book that had a copyright signature next to it. So the person who would own the quotes would not be the authors of those quotes, but the webmaster.

Originally Posted by Wildernesse

This is another example that supports you being ignorant, dishonest, and lacking in any credibility. Previously, people have told you ways that you could take steps to improve your presentation and understanding. You have always provided excuses why you will not. So, if it is any consolation, this conversation about plagiarism, libel, etc., is not harming your position with the posters here, as our opinions are likely already formed about you and the book.

I want to do what's right. If I copied and pasted what I didn't have a right to copy and paste, I will know for the future. I'm glad it was brought to my attention. But to conclude that this has anything to do with the validity of this discovery is ludicrous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

- This is precious:

(emphasis mine)

No the difference is Lessans's mother lied to the doctor, and the doctor assumed she was telling the truth!

The lesson you should learn from that is that you can fool somebody if you lie to them.

That wasn't the point of this chapter at all. You are, once again, misinterpreting the reason he included this in the book. Yes, he could have written it without including this story, but hopefully you got the point. Why are you all doing this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Please calm down. No one here expects anything approaching ethical behavior from the likes of you.

Also that it's A-OK to abuse folks and waste resources in furtherance of making some sort of jackass point! Looks like the special brand of sociopathy on display in this here thread was inherited rather than learned.

I don't know if that story was true, or if he just put it in to make a point. I know his mother was into natural healing. None of this has anything to do with the validity of his discovery, which no one seems interested in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

For example, when a doctor, treating a patient who claims to be very sick but exhibits no discernible physical symptoms, suspects a psychological cause and prescribes a placebo, and instructs the patient to follow the directions carefully so that the "medicine" would take "immediate effect."

I do wonder, however, whether someone who was actually ill might have benefited more from the doctor's time. I guess we'll never know.

I believe that placebos can be powerful. So can a reassuring attitude from a doctor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pages 46-59. If you can't point out what his observations were, we can't move forward.

Where-in Lessans proves that man's will is not free, and that it is an 'undeniable law' that we move to greater satisfaction. His 'undeniable observations' all seem to be hypothetical situations and therefore very deniable since they are fiction. He starts his argument by attempting to prove 'determinism', because it is the opposite of 'free will'. Both these concepts are unprovable, since they are not concrete things but ideas subject to opinion, and that they are opposite is still being debated by those who know such things. He then goes on to state that it is an 'undeniable law' that man must move in the diredtion of greater satisfaction, by stating that any decision a man makes must have been for his 'greater satisfaction'. A bit of circular reasoning to prove another concept that is largely opinion, and not based on hard facts or provable data. His argument goes something like man has the choice of moving or dieing, to move must be toward 'greater satisfaction, and to 'not move' means to die. An extreme over simplification, there is also the possability to maintain the 'statis quo' and not move or do anything. The 'greater satisfaction' is unprovable but Lessans states it and expects his readers to accept it uncriticaly because he said so. Altogether a very week argument based entirely on his opinion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and obviously this ignorance that you claim (accurately where you yourself are concerned) is a good reason to draw the conclusion "Therefor medicine is probably bad".

So you are saying that something that you claim no-one knows is good grounds for avoiding medicine, which does have benefits that we can measure? So the possibility of bad results on the basis of no knowledge should make you avoid something with proven benefits?

I can see how this book seems like a work of genius to you. I never thought it was possible, but your own ideas are actually even less well supported.

You're missing the whole point of this chapter. Read it, and then get back to me. Don't read the first page and think you understand what it's about.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the whole point of this chapter. Read it, and then get back to me. Don't read the first page and think you understand what it's about.

People have read it, you dishnoest, plagiarizing little hack. And it stinks. And we've told you exactly why it stinks, and proven why he is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Where-in Lessans proves that man's will is not free, and that it is an 'undeniable law' that we move to greater satisfaction. His 'undeniable observations' all seem to be hypothetical situations and therefore very deniable since they are fiction. He starts his argument by attempting to prove 'determinism', because it is the opposite of 'free will'. Both these concepts are unprovable, since they are not concrete things but ideas subject to opinion, and that they are opposite is still being debated by those who know such things. He then goes on to state that it is an 'undeniable law' that man must move in the diredtion of greater satisfaction, by stating that any decision a man makes must have been for his 'greater satisfaction'. A bit of circular reasoning to prove another concept that is largely opinion, and not based on hard facts or provable data. His argument goes something like man has the choice of moving or dieing, to move must be toward 'greater satisfaction, and to 'not move' means to die. An extreme over simplification, there is also the possability to maintain the 'statis quo' and not move or do anything. The 'greater satisfaction' is unprovable but Lessans states it and expects his readers to accept it uncriticaly because he said so. Altogether a very week argument based entirely on his opinion.

You're 100% wrong. I really don't know if you are capable of understanding his observations. The fact that you so easily dismiss them by saying "it goes something like this..." is unbelievable. I am not going to try to help you, or anyone else, understand these principles if you really don't want to. You are looking for flaws because you want there to be flaws. But that doesn't mean there are flaws.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the whole point of this chapter. Read it, and then get back to me. Don't read the first page and think you understand what it's about.

Translation, - You don't agree, - you don't understand, - you didn't read the whole book,

I do understand that most people do not like to be told over and over again that they are not telling the truth. But I guess habitual liers expect this of others.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if that story was true, or if he just put it in to make a point. I know his mother was into natural healing but I doubt if she actually called in a doctor to teach him a lesson. None of this has anything to do with the validity of his discovery, which no one seems interested in.

For the record, you originally wrote in your response that Lessans' mother didn't call the doctor just to teach a lesson but used the incident as a "teachable moment" when the doctor prescribed unnecessary medication.

In the spectacularly disingenuous edited version of that response you're claiming that, gee whillikers!! maybe it didn't even happen at all!!! Of course, we should keep in mind that Lessans clearly and unequivocally wrote:

I’ll never forget the time she had a doctor come to the house even
though she was perfectly well in order to teach me a lesson. She
pretended she was very sick and told the doctor she didn’t know what
was wrong.

Sure sounds like it happened to me! If it didn't happen, ol' Seymour was lying through his goddamn teeth. Surprise surprise, eh?

Also, on the events as your father relayed them, his mother wasn't taking advantage of a "teaching moment" that just happened to arise. She purposely defrauded a doctor into making an unnecessary house call. When the doctor arrived she lied to him, as was her intent all along. When the doctor accepted her fraudulent claims in good faith, the fucked up hag was all like:




The "lesson" she gave was a breathtakingly idiotic non-sequitur. And she purposely wasted health care resources to provide that "lesson." What an abominable piece of shit she must have been.

[davidm]

@ Maturin. Nice post, excellent choice of image and lballoon content.

[davidm]

I think the real lesson to this story is that dishonesty and fraud run deep in the Lessans family, and this helps explain a lot about peacegirl.

[Doctor X]

The rotten apple did not fall far from the tree.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know if you are capable of understanding his observations. You are looking for flaws because you want there to be flaws. But that doesn't mean there are flaws.

It's possible that I do not understand bogus observations because they were fiction. It's also impossible not to find flaws because the book is full of them in the form of false assumptions, can't read a page without finding flaws, much like your posts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're 100% wrong. I really don't know if you are capable of understanding his observations. The fact that you so easily dismiss them by saying "it goes something like this..." is unbelievable. I am not going to try to help you, or anyone else, understand these principles if you really don't want to. You are looking for flaws because you want there to be flaws. But that doesn't mean there are flaws.

It seems that the closer someone gets to the truth, the more vitriolic are her responses. Her replies to Davidm are good examples.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe that placebos can be powerful. So can a reassuring attitude from a doctor.

I'm sure you've had plenty of experience with both, they are in common usage among Psychiatrists, or so I've heard.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were published on the internet, but they weren't in a book that had a copyright signature next to it. So the person who would own the quotes would not be the authors of those quotes, but the webmaster.

Ok. I'm going to go right out and make a webpage on our server with the text of a bestseller so that now I am the owner of that material. Maybe I should use Lessans' book? I'm looking forward to my first cup of $46 coffee.

I want to do what's right. If I copied and pasted what I didn't have a right to copy and paste, I will know for the future. I'm glad it was brought to my attention. But to conclude that this has anything to do with the validity of this discovery is ludicrous.

You still can't read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Translation, - You don't agree, - you don't understand, - you didn't read the whole book,

I do understand that most people do not like to be told over and over again that they are not telling the truth. But I guess habitual liers expect this of others.

This thread is out of control, and I'm the one perpetuating it. I'm actually allowing this garbage to be thrown at me. I'm finished talking to you doc. You've gotten very nasty with nothing to say. Good bye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

For the record, you originally wrote in your response that Lessans' mother didn't call the doctor just to teach a lesson but used the incident as a "teachable moment" when the doctor prescribed unnecessary medication.

In the spectacularly disingenuous edited version of that response you're claiming that, gee whillikers!! maybe it didn't even happen at all!!! Of course, we should keep in mind that Lessans clearly and unequivocally wrote:

Sure sounds like it happened to me! If it didn't happen, ol' Seymour was lying through his goddamn teeth. Surprise surprise, eh?

Also, on the events as your father relayed them, his mother wasn't taking advantage of a "teaching moment" that just happened to arise. She purposely defrauded a doctor into making an unnecessary house call. When the doctor arrived she lied to him, as was her intent all along. When the doctor accepted her fraudulent claims in good faith, the fucked up hag was all like:




The "lesson" she gave was a breathtakingly idiotic non-sequitur. And she purposely wasted health care resources to provide that "lesson." What an abominable piece of shit she must have been.

You still win the prize for being the biggest son of a bitch I've ever encountered. Good bye. You're not worth discussing this book with. What was I thinking?

[LadyShea]

Whoever originally researched and compiled that list of quotes and put it on the Internet owns the copyright to that list of quotes. The order is theirs, as is any commentary or explanatory wording. Stealing the list is stealing their research and compilation.

The person who is attributed owns their own words, and if misquoted could make a case for libel.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still win the prize for being the biggest son of a bitch I've ever encountered. Good bye. You're not worth discussing this book with. What was I thinking?