A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a faith claim right there. Do you know how faith claims are distinguished from rational claims? The latter but not the former are supported by evidence and/or argument. You have no evidence or arguments to show that his years of reading were adequate to establish the accuracy of his claims. Therefore it is a faith claim (on your part) that this was the case.

The fact that you say he has no argument or support for his claims is utterly ridiculous Spacemonkey. I realize you don't consider a careful description based on astute observation as good enough, even though he gives very convincing evidence for his claims. If you don't want to investigate the book any further, it's okay with me. You're off the hook.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I didn't use it against you. Your bias was very obvious, so I looked for the relationship I knew to be there, and there it was.

That you were not forthcoming about the connection was dishonest. Research papers all carry a disclosure of all connections and relationships, for this reason, to be upfront about possible biases.

How can I ignore "thousands of samples" I've never seen or read? Lessans didn't even offer a list of sources or citations of books researched! YOU don't even know what those samples are because Lessans didn't write them down.

How do you know there were thousands and thousands of samples? Because he told you so and you believed him. That is faith and trust in your father, that is faith and trust we readers have no reason, whatsoever, to offer the author of a book.

Then let it rest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you say he has no argument or support for his claims is utterly ridiculous Spacemonkey. I realize you don't consider a careful description based on astute observation as good enough, even though he gives very convincing evidence for his claims. If you don't want to investigate the book any further, it's okay with me. You're off the hook.

You've done it again. I said that you had no evidence or arguments for your claim, and you've responded as if I said Lessans had no evidence or arguments for his claim. Which part of your brain broke to make you keep doing this?

If it is so ridiculous of me to say that he didn't adequately support his claims, then show me the arguments or support he provided for his listed presuppositions. We both know you can't do it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've done it again. I said that you had no evidence or arguments for your claim, and you've responded as if I said Lessans had no evidence or arguments for his claim. Which part of your brain broke to make you keep doing this?

If it is so ridiculous of me to say that he didn't adequately support his claims, then show me the arguments or support he provided for his listed presuppositions. We both know you can't do it.

He PRESUPPOSED NOTHING SPACEMONKEY!!!!!! Which part of your brain broke to make you keep repeating this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He PRESUPPOSED NOTHING SPACEMONKEY!!!!!! Which part of your brain broke to make you keep repeating this?

You're wrong. His chapter presupposes the following points:

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

These things have to be true for his arguments to work. Unless you can support them or show me were Lessans did so, they will remain presuppositions. Deal with it.

[Angakuk]

She is dealing with it. The method she is using is called denial.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She is dealing with it. The method she is using is called denial.

Is that a sub category of willfull ignorance or is it related to lying?

[peacegirl]

I'm not posting to start another conversation. I just wanted to give people a heads up on my progress. Because of input from this forum I have revised the introduction to make it less redundant. I feel more confident than ever, thanks to the constructive criticism I received. Thanks again.

[davidm]

LOL

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL

[But]

Are you still discussing this on internet boards? I need to read some more of that.

[davidm]

Just savor that for a moment! After nearly 1,000 pages of tutoring this dishonest nut, after giving her a college-level and in some cases post-grad education on a vast range of topics in philosophy, science and maths, all of which showed that Lessans was a nincompoop, what did she learn, and what is she thanking us for?

The introduction to the idiot's book will be less redundant.



By all means, peacegirl, update us on your "progress" regularly! That should be good for more lulz.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Are you still discussing this on internet boards? I need to read some more of that.

No, I would never subject myself to that again. Sorry.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I would never subject myself to that again. Sorry.

No, you would never subject yourself to a real, free education, while hissing insults at your educators, like telling The Lone Ranger that he needed to "go back to school."

Nice!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not posting to start another conversation. I just wanted to give people a heads up on my progress...

Unless you're speaking of psychiatric treatment, I expect to be rather underwhelmed by this 'progress'...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of input from this forum I have revised the introduction to make it less redundant. I feel more confident than ever, thanks to the constructive criticism I received. Thanks again.

LOL. Yeah... because so much of our criticism focused upon redundancies in the introduction, right? Not upon how the entire book is an absurd collection of pseudi-scientific and pseudo-philosophical nonsense and crackpottery not supported by any shred of actual evidence or sound reasoning.

With your revised introduction I'm sure your problems are all solved and you can launch right ahead into your next online discussion, and somehow everyone there will agree with and praise your father's words as you do. With a new introduction, all that pesky evidence refuting his claims will just magically disappear!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I would never subject myself to that again. Sorry.

And at how many past forums have you said this exact same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you would never subject yourself to a real, free education, while hissing insults at your educators, like telling The Lone Ranger that he needed to "go back to school."

Nice!

Show me where I said that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And at how many past forums have you said this exact same thing?

I never said that I wouldn't do that again in past forums because it hadn't dawned on me that I was going up the wrong alley.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that I wouldn't do that again in past forums because it hadn't dawned on me that I was going up the wrong alley.

Oh please. You have the memory of a goldfish. You have no idea what you have or have not said at other forums.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unless you're speaking of psychiatric treatment, I expect to be rather underwhelmed by this 'progress'...

Form is one thing, content is another. There is nothing wrong with the content Spacemonkey (which you seem to be implying), but the writing style needed improvement. I never claimed to be a professional writer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of input from this forum I have revised the introduction to make it less redundant. I feel more confident than ever, thanks to the constructive criticism I received. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. Yeah... because so much of our criticism focused upon redundancies in the introduction, right? Not upon how the entire book is an absurd collection of pseudi-scientific and pseudo-philosophical nonsense and crackpottery not supported by any shred of actual evidence or sound reasoning.

You're so completely wrong regarding this knowledge, it actually hurts when I hear you knocking it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With your revised introduction I'm sure your problems are all solved and you can launch right ahead into your next online discussion, and somehow everyone there will agree with and praise your father's words as you do. With a new introduction, all that pesky evidence refuting his claims will just magically disappear!

There is no pesky evidence that I am not dealing with. Unfortunately, it's your lack of understanding that when the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, this does not involve the traveling of red photons before blue. Your entire refutation is completely off base. Anyway, I don't want to get into this discussion again because it ends up being a false argument based on a false premise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<blithering idiocy snipped>

...Anyway, I don't want to get into this discussion again because it ends up being a false argument based on a false premise...

Then what are you doing here? If you're not here for discussion, then what? Just the attention? Or are you addicted to this behavior?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not posting to start another conversation.

Liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where I said that.

Right here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your model does not prove that the brain is afferent. This is a logical conclusion only. And if you think it does prove it, then you better go back to school and learn the difference between logic and mathematical proof.

See? You have no reliable memory for what you have or have not previously said.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I would never subject myself to that again. Sorry.

Too late, you just did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<blithering idiocy snipped>

...Anyway, I don't want to get into this discussion again because it ends up being a false argument based on a false premise...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what are you doing here? If you're not here for discussion, then what? Just the attention? Or are you addicted to this behavior?

I don't think there is anything wrong with my sharing with this group (that I spent almost a year with) that I updated the introduction thanks to the constructive criticism I received. It doesn't make me addicted to attention, or anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not posting to start another conversation.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar.

I'm really not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right here:

See? You have no reliable memory for what you have or have not previously said.

So what's so disrespectful about that? He was implying that because I refused to abandon claims that he believed were already tested and falsified, it is only because I haven't educated myself on these relevant matters. All I did was respond in kind by saying that if he doesn't know the difference between logic and mathematical proof, he is the one that needs to go back to school.