A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words mean nothing LadyShea unless they coincide with reality. You could just as easily say Real time seeing = no time delay = no transfer of information through space/time.

Words are all we have to communicate with, and I chose the words that correspond with reality.

If we see with no speed of light delay, then we are gaining information across a distance with no speed of light delay, and that is not possible according to physics.

The physics may be wrong, but so far all the evidence points to Special Relativity being accurate. If you have some compelling evidence against it, I would be happy to look at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let me give Sidhe the Cliff’s Notes version of the book under discussion to get him up to speed.

1. Man’s Will Is Not Free.

And all you can say is it's a modal fallacy, which is wrong.

2. The Two-Sided Equation. This is very, VERY important, a mathematical truth even though there is no math in it.

You don't even know what it is, so stop acting like you do.

3. The eyes are not a sense organ, even though they are.

The verdict is still out.

4. We see instantaneously, in “real time,” even though the theory of relativity shows that this is impossible.

That's why you're so angry.

5. “Real time” seeing does not contradict the theory of relativity, even though it does.

If it does, it's not Lessans' fault.

6. Some stuff about how conscience operates.

That's all you have to say about conscience, when it's the cornerstone of the discovery? No wonder you don't have a clue.

7. Even though Hitler killed a bunch of Jews he wasn’t to blame for doing so and besides, all those Jews that were killed are still alive, even though they are other people.

David, what you are not understanding is that the Hitler's of the world will be prevented from becoming Hitlers.

8 In the Golden Age, there will be no poverty, crime, violence or evil, and there will be many, many fewer Queers, if there are any Queers at all.

Do you see what you've done? You are looking for flaws. He never said there won't be gays. Actually, I wrote that part to let people know that if one is gay, no one will judge him. Can't you read?

9. In the Golden Age, people will wear a lot less clothing and begin fucking on the spot just as soon as they meet. They will then stay together for life, BUT — and this is very important:

10. They will sleep in separate beds.

They will not be fucking on the spot. But when they do, they will desire to stay together. There will be no more unrequited love.

And they will have separate beds if they want to sleep alone. So what? They're doing that today.

11. A little of the ol’ rumpy pumpy on the dinner table is just fine, just so long as the yung’uns aren’t present.

Hey, don't knock what you haven't tried. In all seriousness, why are you trying to make Lessans look bad when a newcomer comes on this thread? Isn't that what you're trying to do?

12. To wake a child is to blame him for sleeping.

If you don't get that, I'm sorry. If someone is sleeping, it means his body desires sleeping. To wake him (unless it's an emergency of some sort) is a form of blame because it's saying to him in so many words, my desire to wake you is more important than your desire to sleep. But, of course, you don't get that either.

13. Doctors are bad.

He never said that. He said that doctors will never take the kind of chances they take today with surgeries and drugs unless it's absolutely necessary. Today the need to earn a living often overrides the risks involved.

14. Vaccination is bad.

I added that part, remember? Vaccination can be risky, therefore in the new world vaccinations won't be mandatory. Parents will have the final say where today they don't.

15. In the Golden Age, Mom will undertake a special study of cooking, and if Dad likes spaghetti and meatballs on Monday, then by God, Mom will produce the best gol-durned spaghetti and meatballs wot the world has ever seen!

That was just an example. If it's her job to cook dinner, she will try her best to make what pleases him because he won't blame her if she doesn't.

16. The author wrote letters to Presidents Nixon and Carter demanding an audience with them. Both letters were ignored. The author ended up suing President Carter for refusing to meet with him.

So what? If you're confronted with the same situation, then you can talk.

17. The author had a seventh-grade education, but people with PhDs have the minds of chimpanzees compared with him.

David, you know I didn't say that.

18. The non compos mentis person who started this thread is the author’s daughter. Her own children won't read her father's book, but she expects everyone else to.

OK?

Now you are up to speed.

This is hogwash Sidhe. Please don't listen to David. He's just angry because efferent vision contradicts special relativity. That's what this is about.

[LadyShea]

It said that under the changed conditions there will be fewer gays. And what do you mean you wrote it? The amount you contributed seems to keep on growing.

Originally Posted by Declined and Fall

Homosexual relations "will naturally decline when all blame is removed from the environment"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is hogwash Sidhe. Please don't listen to David. He's just angry because efferent vision contradicts special relativity. That's what this is about.

Oh, so now you admit it contradicts special relativity?

I thought you said it didn't!

[LadyShea]

You know you're in love with relativity, david, so contradicting it makes you see red.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Words mean nothing LadyShea unless they coincide with reality. You could just as easily say Real time seeing = no time delay = no transfer of information through space/time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Words are all we have to communicate with, and I chose the words that correspond with reality.

You think they correspond with reality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see with no speed of light delay, then we are gaining information across a distance with no speed of light delay, and that is not possible according to physics.

I'm not going to argue with you LadyShea because it's going to get us nowhere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The physics may be wrong, but so far all the evidence points to Special Relativity being accurate. If you have some compelling evidence against it, I would be happy to look at it.

You don't even understand the first chapter, so why do you think you are in the position to judge this chapter? As I said, only time will tell who is right.

[davidm]

Special relativity is my Father! I won't have peacegirl make a fool of my father! I won't let my father be the butt of her jokes anymore!

[davidm]

LadyShea, only time will tell who is right. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. A penny saved is a penny earned. A stitch in time saves nine. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is hogwash Sidhe. Please don't listen to David. He's just angry because efferent vision contradicts special relativity. That's what this is about.

After 350 pages, you still don't even know how to use the quote function!

Hey, peacegirl, take your ass-hat quotes out from under my name, OK?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even understand the first chapter, so why do you think you are in the position to judge this chapter?

The first chapter didn't posit a testable hypothesis, it was all philosophical musings. I disagree with Lessans reasoning as to why man's will is not free, but that isn't really an evidence based argument so I don't care.

The chapter on vision made specific scientific claims that have already been tested extensively, and all evidence points to Lessans being totally wrong about efferent sight and real time seeing.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have looked, and there's only conjecture, flimsy argument, and unreliable empirical studies.

Now it is peacegirl who is lying about reading the tests and studies that have been done, No-one who has actually read any of the studies could describe them this way. Peacegirl has not looked at any of the evidence that proves afferent vision is true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now it is peacegirl who is lying about reading the tests and studies that have been done, No-one who has actually read any of the studies could describe them this way. Peacegirl has not looked at any of the evidence that proves afferent vision is true.

Yes, of course, she is a nasty little liar. Only a liar or a monumentally stupid person could say what she said in the quoted part. I suppose she is both a liar and stupid, though. She has given ample evidence of both. Hey, peacegirl, tell us in detail why the empirical studies are "unreliable," hmm?

You wouldn't know a scientific study if it bit you in the ass.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You know you're in love with relativity, david, so contradicting it makes you see red.

Would that be efferently?

[LadyShea]

Yes, anger puts a red gel over the mental slide projected onto the screen of actual substance.

[Doctor X]

She has repeatedly admitted she did not actually read the studies.

She is like a creationist who skims a geology textbook and starts screaming "NO!NO!NO!NO!"

I think she has become the Village Idiot. Quite an achievement.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, anger puts a red gel over the mental slide projected onto the screen of actual substance.

It would seem that Peacegirl has an abundance of 'red gel' (mostly between the ears) in place of the grey matter that is supposed to be there. Or as Poirot says, the little grey cells, but I suspect that if Peacegirl has any at all they must be very little indeed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It said that under the changed conditions there will be fewer gays. And what do you mean you wrote it? The amount you contributed seems to keep on growing.

Think about it. If someone becomes gay because of pressures in the environment, when the pressures are gone, then those factors won't enter into it. That's all that was meant by that. Everyone seems to love twisting what was written.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let me give Sidhe the Cliff’s Notes version of the book under discussion to get him up to speed.

1. Man’s Will Is Not Free.

And all you can say is it's a modal fallacy, which is wrong.

2. The Two-Sided Equation. This is very, VERY important, a mathematical truth even though there is no math in it.

You don't even know what it is, so stop acting like you do.

3. The eyes are not a sense organ, even though they are.

The verdict is still out.

4. We see instantaneously, in “real time,” even though the theory of relativity shows that this is impossible.

That's why you're so angry.

5. “Real time” seeing does not contradict the theory of relativity, even though it does.

If it does, it's not Lessans' fault.

6. Some stuff about how conscience operates.

That's all you have to say about conscience, when it's the cornerstone of the discovery? No wonder you don't have a clue.

7. Even though Hitler killed a bunch of Jews he wasn’t to blame for doing so and besides, all those Jews that were killed are still alive, even though they are other people.

David, what you are not understanding is that the Hitler's of the world will be prevented from becoming Hitlers.

8 In the Golden Age, there will be no poverty, crime, violence or evil, and there will be many, many fewer Queers, if there are any Queers at all.

Do you see what you've done? You are looking for flaws. He never said there won't be gays. Actually, I wrote that part to let people know that if one is gay, no one will judge him. Can't you read?

9. In the Golden Age, people will wear a lot less clothing and begin fucking on the spot just as soon as they meet. They will then stay together for life, BUT — and this is very important:

10. They will sleep in separate beds.

They will not be fucking on the spot. But when they do, they will desire to stay together. There will be no more unrequited love.

And they will have separate beds if they want to sleep alone. So what? They're doing that today.

11. A little of the ol’ rumpy pumpy on the dinner table is just fine, just so long as the yung’uns aren’t present.

Hey, don't knock what you haven't tried. In all seriousness, why are you trying to make Lessans look bad when a newcomer comes on this thread? Isn't that what you're trying to do?

12. To wake a child is to blame him for sleeping.

If you don't get that, I'm sorry. If someone is sleeping, it means his body desires sleeping. To wake him (unless it's an emergency of some sort) is a form of blame because it's saying to him in so many words, my desire to wake you is more important than your desire to sleep. But, of course, you don't get that either.

13. Doctors are bad.

He never said that. He said that doctors will never take the kind of chances they take today with surgeries and drugs unless it's absolutely necessary. Today the need to earn a living often overrides the risks involved.

14. Vaccination is bad.

I added that part, remember? Vaccination can be risky, therefore in the new world vaccinations won't be mandatory. Parents will have the final say where today they don't.

15. In the Golden Age, Mom will undertake a special study of cooking, and if Dad likes spaghetti and meatballs on Monday, then by God, Mom will produce the best gol-durned spaghetti and meatballs wot the world has ever seen!

That was just an example. If it's her job to cook dinner, she will try her best to make what pleases him because he won't blame her if she doesn't.

16. The author wrote letters to Presidents Nixon and Carter demanding an audience with them. Both letters were ignored. The author ended up suing President Carter for refusing to meet with him.

So what? If you're confronted with the same situation, then you can talk.

17. The author had a seventh-grade education, but people with PhDs have the minds of chimpanzees compared with him.

David, you know I didn't say that.

18. The non compos mentis person who started this thread is the author’s daughter. Her own children won't read her father's book, but she expects everyone else to.

OK?

Now you are up to speed. [/quote]

This is hogwash Sidhe. Please don't listen to David. He's just angry because efferent vision contradicts special relativity. That's what this is about.[/QUOTE]



After 350 pages, you still don't even know how to use the quote function!

Hey, peacegirl, take your ass-hat quotes out from under my name, OK?[/QUOTE]

David, you're not going to start this again. You have nothing to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It would seem that Peacegirl has an abundance of 'red gel' (mostly between the ears) in place of the grey matter that is supposed to be there. Or as Poirot says, the little grey cells, but I suspect that if Peacegirl has any at all they must be very little indeed.

I can't hack you anymore. You just love making fun of me. Ignore time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about it. If someone becomes gay because of pressures in the environment, when the pressures are gone, then those factors won't enter into it. That's all that was meant by that. Everyone seems to love twisting what was written.

Pressures of the environment make one gay?



Got any evidence for this? I suspect it's the same amount of evidence you have for your other balderdash assertions: zero.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The first chapter didn't posit a testable hypothesis, it was all philosophical musings. I disagree with Lessans reasoning as to why man's will is not free, but that isn't really an evidence based argument so I don't care.

You don't see his proof, that's why. I saw your summary and it was lacking in understanding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The chapter on vision made specific scientific claims that have already been tested extensively, and all evidence points to Lessans being totally wrong about efferent sight and real time seeing.

I don't see any conclusive evidence. It's amazing how theory can become accepted as fact, and if anyone disagrees they're looked down upon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Pressures of the environment make one gay?



Got any evidence for this? I suspect it's the same amount of evidence you have for your other balderdash assertions: zero.

I think so. The environment has a lot to do with our behavior. I'm not saying it is the only thing, but it does play a part in some situations, not all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about it. If someone becomes gay because of pressures in the environment, when the pressures are gone, then those factors won't enter into it. That's all that was meant by that. Everyone seems to love twisting what was written.

Think about what? What makes you think it's probable that one "becomes gay" because of "pressures in the environment"? What pressures? What factors? You stated it was the removal of blame, specifically, that would cause homosexuality to decline [homosexual relationships] will naturally decline when all blame is removed from the environment. What does blame have to do with homosexuality?

Also it was asserted as fact, an obvious one to you apparently since you used the word "naturally", not posited as a possibility.

[Doctor X]

She has the same evidence she has for sight being efferent . . . none.

--J.D.