A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did he say that? And what the hell do you mean "turning to the gay world"? You believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, don't you? Did Lessans also believe that? Nobody who understands that homosexuality is a natural biological variance like left handedness would ever use that wording.

This is not an "if" statement. It's a positive assertion.

Is there some context you left out of your quoted passage?

No, there isn't anything left out. It is very true that not all people are born gay. Is that what you are trying to contest? What is it LadyShea that you're hanging on to in order to make Lessans the bad guy? It's as clear as day to me.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no assumption. He was stating IF...the environment had something to do with some people turning to the gay world, then that would not be a factor.

Golly gee, can you not read?

There is no "IF" statement here at all. He said that in the new world, gay unions will naturally decline. No Ifs, Ands or Buts about it. The only "IF" statement comes in the next sentence, when he talks about IF any such relationships will continue at all.

You are so addled, so crazed, that you cannot even understand the meaning of what Lessans wrote. Do you remember the hissy fit you threw when we pointed out that Lessans said it was a mathematical certainty that husbands and wives would no longer share the same bed? Do you remember how you denied that he wrote those words, and remarkably, you continued to deny it, even after we showed you the direct quote from the book.

You also deny that he wrote that photons arriving from the sun just stand still and stick around to smile on us when we wake up. But that is exactly what he wrote.

You deny the plain text in front of you! You must a heretic, already creating a schism in Lessanology!

And you wonder why people think you are crazy! Honestly, what else can we think?

[LadyShea]

I am not trying to make him a bad guy I am trying to figure out what it was he thought about homosexuality by reading what he wrote about it. You indicated he made some kind of hypothetical "if" statement, but he didn't.

According to the words he wrote he assumed that homosexuality would decrease in the Golden Age, and he assumed the decrease would somehow be directly caused by the removal of blame from the environment.

Available evidence indicates that homosexual relationships should increase in a no-blame environment. The prevalence of homosexuality is consistently about 10% of the population, however due to societal judgments and taboos many do not enter homosexual relationships or unions. Remove the judgment and you increase the relationships. It's the only assumption that makes sense.

If there is a homophobe or bad guy here it is YOU. Your statement "Turning to the gay world" is a clear indication that you adhere to the "lifestyle choice" dogma.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very true that not all people are born gay.

Of course not all people are born gay, many people, even most people are not gay

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You do not have the last word David, no matter how much you want to believe that you do.

My guess is that davidm is much younger than you. It is very likely that he will have the last word. You have no converts and never will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not trying to make him a bad guy I am trying to figure out what it was he thought about homosexuality by reading what he wrote about it. You indicated he made some kind of hypothetical "if" statement, but he didn't.

According to the words he wrote he assumed that homosexuality would decrease in the Golden Age, and he assumed the decrease would somehow be directly caused by the removal of blame from the environment.

Available evidence indicates that homosexual relationships should increase in a no-blame environment. The prevalence of homosexuality is consistently about 10% of the population, however due to societal judgments and taboos many do not enter homosexual relationships or unions. Remove the judgment and you increase the relationships. It's the only assumption that makes sense.

If there is a homophobe or bad guy here it is YOU. Your statement "Turning to the gay world" is a clear indication that you adhere to the "lifestyle choice" dogma.

I only adhere to the "lifestyle choice" where it is a component. You, on the other hand, are accusing me of being prejudice just because I am not stating that being gay is strictly genetic. You are so narrow in your thinking, LadyShea, that you can't even separate the two.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very true that not all people are born gay.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not all people are born gay, many people, even most people are not gay

And some people are gay because the environment pushed them in that direction.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And some people are gay because the environment pushed them in that direction.

You have NO IDEA whether that is true, but even if it is true, so what? Why, in your father's goofball pseudo-utopia, would gay relations decline and, as he implied with his "if" statement in the following sentence, even cease to exist altogether? You have no idea, do you? Why couldn't it be just the opposite state of affairs? That in new world, heterosexual relations will decline, to be replaced by universal homosexuality? One statement is just as goofy as the other.

Of course, I know why Seymour wrote that line. It's the same reason he wrote everything else. Seymour didn't like queers, so in his private, comic-book fantasy of utopia, out they go. Seymour didn't like it that he couldn't do what he wanted in the absence of a degree, so in his comic-book utopia, if Seymour wanted to be a doctor, he'd hang out a shingle and he'd be a doctor. Seymour didn't like sharing a bed, so in the new world everyone would think just like him. Seymour liked the wife to do the cooking and do a damn good job of it, and so in the new world, every wife would undertake a meticulous study of cooking and prepare Seymour's favorite, spaghetti and meatballs. And so on. The book is all about his fantasies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You have NO IDEA whether that is true, but even if it is true, so what? Why, in your father's goofball pseudo-utopia, would gay relations decline and, as he implied with his "if" statement in the following sentence, even cease to exist altogether? You have no idea, do you? Why couldn't it be just the opposite state of affairs? That in new world, heterosexual relations will decline, to be replaced by universal homosexuality? One statement is just as goofy as the other.

Because the two are not created equal David. Does that make me prejudiced? This doesn't mean there aren't people born gay or transsexual. Why are you twisting his words? Oh, I know. You don't like that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ and that we see in real time.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, I know why Seymour wrote that line. It's the same reason he wrote everything else. Seymour didn't like queers, so in his private, comic-book fantasy of utopia, out they go. Seymour didn't like it that he couldn't do what he wanted in the absence of a degree, so in his comic-book utopia, if Seymour wanted to be a doctor, he'd hang out a shingle and he'd be a doctor. Seymour didn't like sharing a bed, so in the new world everyone would think just like him. Seymour liked the wife to do the cooking and do a damn good job of it, and so in the new world, every wife would undertake a meticulous study of cooking and prepare Seymour's favorite, spaghetti and meatballs. And so on. The book is all about his fantasies.

Wow, it's surprising what lengths you will go in order to make him look bad. You keep referring back to the same old lines you used early in this thread because there's nothing else left in your arsenal. You want to make sure no one reads the book because if they do, they might actually like it. I already explained what he meant when he said anyone can take out a shingle, but you don't care. You just keep repeating these lies. No one is telling people not to share a bed. Are you nuts David? You don't even understand the first thing about what he meant, but you have so much to say. You are here to condemn Lessans because you don't like that he claimed the eyes aren't a sense organ and that we see in real time. Admit it. In the case of cooking, whoever has this role will make every effort to make the food enjoyable. Today, mothers often force children to eat what they don't like the taste of, or else get punished. That will no longer be the case. What's so wrong about what he said unless you're trying to twist his words?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only adhere to the "lifestyle choice" where it is a component.

What makes you think it is ever a component? And why did you use the wording you used, "turning to the gay world"? Turning to the gay world for what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You, on the other hand, are accusing me of being prejudice just because I am not stating that being gay is strictly genetic. You are so narrow in your thinking, LadyShea, that you can't even separate the two.

I've never stated, nor do I think that homosexuality is strictly genetic...that's a strawman right there. There is a lot more to biology than genetics.

I am accusing you of archaic thinking because of the words you chose "turning to the gay world", which demonstrate your mindset toward homosexuality as being almost exclusively a lifestyle choice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only adhere to the "lifestyle choice" where it is a component./quote]
What makes you think it is ever a component? And why did you use the wording you used, "turning to the gay world"? Turning to the gay world for what?

I've never stated, nor do I think that homosexuality is strictly genetic...that's a strawman right there. There is a lot more to biology than genetics.

I am accusing you of archaic thinking because of the words you chose "turning to the gay world", which demonstrate your mindset toward homosexuality as being almost exclusively a lifestyle choice.

I don't know what words I chose that are archaic. You are, once again, looking for things you can use to discredit Lessans and me.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not all people are born gay, many people, even most people are not gay

You are so wrong, Lady Shea. You don't even understand how wrong you are. All people are born gay. Heterosexuality is the result of the conditioning caused by the mind seeing out of the eyes and projecting inaccurate words onto a screen of undeniable reality. Once words like pretty and beautiful are removed from our vocabulary there will be no more heterosexuals. You, Lady Shea, are ruining it for everybody, especially the gays.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are so wrong, Lady Shea. You don't even understand how wrong you are. All people are born gay. Heterosexuality is the result of the conditioning caused by the mind seeing out of the eyes and projecting inaccurate words onto a screen of undeniable reality. Once words like pretty and beautiful are removed from our vocabulary there will be no more heterosexuals. You, Lady Shea, are ruining it for everybody, especially the gays.

Oh you naughty boy, Peacegirl is going to severely scold you for corrupting Lessans words. Only Peacegirl is allowed to do that, don't you know?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the two are not created equal David.

What does that even mean, peacegirl? Not created equal in numbers? Or not morally equal? What are you talking about? Why should Seymour's crackpot utopia have an effect at all on sexual preferences? Why, peacegirl, why? I know why! He didn't like queers! He doesn't want them in his fantasy utopia, obviously!

Does that make me prejudiced? This doesn't mean there aren't people born gay or transsexual. Why are you twisting his words?

Where did I twist his words? This is why you are like a crazy bag lady. You can't even seem to understand the plain meaning of your father's own writing. He said that in his doofus pseudo-utopia, gay relations would decline, no ifs, ands or buts about it, and I'm asking why did he conclude thus? He does not say, of course! Do YOU know? Of course you don't!

Oh, I know. You don't like that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ and that we see in real time.

The eyes are a sense organ, and we see in delayed time. Your father was nuts. But how we see has nothing to do with his claims about gays. Why did he make those claims about gays, peacegirl?

Wow, it's surprising what lengths you will go in order to make him look bad. You keep referring back to the same old lines you used early in this thread because there's nothing else left in your arsenal. You want to make sure no one reads the book because if they do, they might actually like it. I already explained what he meant when he said anyone can take out a shingle, but you don't care. You just keep repeating these lies. No one is telling people not to share a bed. Are you nuts David? You don't even understand the first thing about what he meant, but you have so much to say. You are here to condemn Lessans because you don't like that he claimed the eyes aren't a sense organ and that we see in real time. Admit it. In the case of cooking, whoever has this role will make every effort to make the food enjoyable. Today, mothers often force children to eat what they don't like the taste of, or else get punished. That will no longer be the case. What's so wrong about what he said unless you're trying to twist his words?

Bullshit, you weasel, he wrote that it was mathematically impossible that any couples would want to share a bed in his crackpot pseudo-utopia. Got any idea how he came up with this nutball conclusion, peacegirl? No, of course you don't!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What does that even mean, peacegirl? Not created equal in numbers?
Or not morally equal? What are you talking about? Why should Seymour's crackpot utopia have an effect at all on sexual preferences? Why, peacegirl, why? I know why! He didn't like queers! He doesn't want them in his fantasy utopia, obviously!

If you read the book David you would know that this is not a moral issue. So not only are you taking things out of context, but you are attributing false meanings to his words. What is wrong with you?

Does that make me prejudiced? This doesn't mean there aren't people born gay or transsexual. Why are you twisting his words?

Originally Posted by davidm

Where did I twist his words? This is why you are like a crazy bag lady. You can't even seem to understand the plain meaning of your father's own writing. He said that in his doofus pseudo-utopia, gay relations would decline, no ifs, ands or buts about it, and I'm asking why did he conclude thus? He does not say, of course! Do YOU know? Of course you don't!

I told you why he said what he said. Why can't you accept that he was not being judgmental? He was just stating that if the environment has anything to do with it, then homosexuality will decline, because what drove someone to this lifestyle will no longer be present. This does not mean he thought that homosexuality was wrong or bad. You are making up stories again.

Oh, I know. You don't like that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ and that we see in real time.

Originally Posted by davidm

The eyes are a sense organ, and we see in delayed time. Your father was nuts. But how we see has nothing to do with his claims about gays. Why did he make those claims about gays, peacegirl?

He made no claims about gays. He made a statement that I believe is true. There are situations that cause a person to desire the same sex due to environmental reasons. I have a friend who keeps saying if she breaks up with her boyfriend, she's going to turn to women, because women are more nurturing and less controlling. I don't know if she's being serious. The point I'm making is that she would be turning to another woman due to experiences she has had with men, which is environmental, not biological.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course, I know why Seymour wrote that line. It's the same reason he wrote everything else. Seymour didn't like queers, so in his private, comic-book fantasy of utopia, out they go. Seymour didn't like it that he couldn't do what he wanted in the absence of a degree, so in his comic-book utopia, if Seymour wanted to be a doctor, he'd hang out a shingle and he'd be a doctor. Seymour didn't like sharing a bed, so in the new world everyone would think just like him. Seymour liked the wife to do the cooking and do a damn good job of it, and so in the new world, every wife would undertake a meticulous study of cooking and prepare Seymour's favorite, spaghetti and meatballs. And so on. The book is all about his fantasies.

Wow, it's surprising what lengths you will go in order to make him look bad. You keep referring back to the same old lines you used early in this thread because there's nothing else left in your arsenal. You want to make sure no one reads the book because if they do, they might actually like it. I already explained what he meant when he said anyone can take out a shingle, but you don't care. You just keep repeating these lies. No one is telling people not to share a bed. Are you nuts David? You don't even understand the first thing about what he meant, but you have so much to say. You are here to condemn Lessans because you don't like that he claimed the eyes aren't a sense organ and that we see in real time. Admit it. In the case of cooking, whoever has this role will make every effort to make the food enjoyable. Today, mothers often force children to eat what they don't like the taste of, or else get punished. That will no longer be the case. What's so wrong about what he said unless you're trying to twist his words?

Originally Posted by davidm

Bullshit, you weasel, he wrote that it was mathematically impossible that any couples would want to share a bed in his crackpot pseudo-utopia. Got any idea how he came up with this nutball conclusion, peacegirl? No, of course you don't!

This is what he said.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part p. 361

There is nothing wrong
with desiring to sleep together but it cannot be satisfied unless both
parties want the same thing. If they do not desire to move to another
bed after making love, then it is obvious that both are content with
the sleeping arrangement. But having only one double bed as the only
alternative involves the same principle of considering only one
person’s desire, and it is a subtle form of advance blame.

If our
partner wants to sleep alone while we do not, we are the ones who are
being selfish if we demand that they honor our request. In our present
world we justify criticizing our partner for wanting to sleep alone by
invoking sleeping together as a condition of marriage. We expect
them to show their love by sacrificing their desire in favor of ours
which only reveals our selfishness by expecting them to give up what
they should not have to. Then when they insist on sleeping alone, and
because we believe we are right, we call them selfish and strike the first
blow to get even for something that does not infringe on anyone else’s
desires.

[LadyShea]

He was just stating that if the environment has anything to do with it, then homosexuality will decline, because what drove someone to this lifestyle will no longer be present.

Where did he say "if environment has anything to do with it" where was that even implied?

He made no qualifications and gave no further context for his conclusion that homosexual unions would naturally decline once blame is removed from the environment, from what I can find in the text.

Please show the textual evidence, from the book, that his statement was made within the context you are now claiming it was....namely that "if the environment has anything to do with it..."

If there is such textual evidence I will apologize, if not you are just rationalizing and justifying and trying to insert context and meaning that Lessans didn't include in his clear as crystal statement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did he say "if environment has anything to do with it" where was that even implied?

He made no qualifications and gave no further context for his conclusion that homosexual unions would naturally decline once blame is removed from the environment, from what I can find in the text.

Please show the textual evidence, from the book, that his statement was made within the context you are now claiming it was....namely that "if the environment has anything to do with it..."

If there is such textual evidence I will apologize, if not you are just rationalizing and justifying and trying to insert context and meaning that Lessans didn't include in his clear as crystal statement.

He didn't add more textual evidence that homosexual unions will decline once all blame is removed. But if environment does play a part in one's sexual orientation, then what he said is not wrong. Gay unions will naturally decline if environment plays a part because the environment is going to be so vastly different and therefore our choices will be affected by these changes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't add more textual evidence that homosexual unions will decline once all blame is removed. But if environment does play a part in one's sexual orientation, then what he said is not wrong. Gay unions will naturally decline if environment plays a part because the environment is going to be so vastly different and therefore our choices will be affected by these changes.

Since he concluded that homosexual unions would "naturally declined once blame is removed from the environment" he very clearly assumed that homosexuality is caused by an environment that includes blame.

Quit saying he made no assumptions when it is so obvious and irrefutable that he did. You're not doing him any favors with your post hoc rationalizations.

[davidm]

If environment plays a role in sexual orientation, then why shouldn't we believe that heterosexual relations will decline? And that homosexual relations will increase? Or that something else altogether will happen, or that nothing much will change at all with regard to sexual orientation and relatios? What the fuck is the basis for his claim?

Nothing! Just old Seymour pulling it out of his ass again, just like he did his smiling molecules of light!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't add more textual evidence that homosexual unions will decline once all blame is removed. But if environment does play a part in one's sexual orientation, then what he said is not wrong. Gay unions will naturally decline if environment plays a part because the environment is going to be so vastly different and therefore our choices will be affected by these changes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since he concluded that homosexual unions would "naturally declined once blame is removed from the environment" he very clearly assumed that homosexuality is caused by an environment that includes blame.

So what? What is so wrong about saying that homosexuality will naturally decline when there is no more blame or judgment? Regardless, it's still not a choice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit saying he made no assumptions when it is so obvious and irrefutable that he did. You're not doing him any favors with your post hoc rationalizations.

I actually wrote that sentence. Maybe I will take it out. I didn't know it would cause such a problem. He just wrote this:

If there are a certain number of homosexual
relationships that remain, no one will judge or criticize these unions
since this is a first blow which can no longer be justified.


And don't tell me you don't know what he wrote and what I wrote. I didn't change the major concepts, and he gave me permission to add whatever I felt would add to the book. Actually his sentence assumes, also, that the environment plays a major role. Until we're in the new world we won't know what influence blame, punishment and judgment have had on people's psyches, compared to those who were born gay. The problem is that you're assuming this is a criticism of the gay community. It's not. Even if half the world turns out to be gay, there will be no more judgment, homophobia, or hate crimes. Isn't that a good thing? So stop finding issue with everything he writes, especially when you are interpreting his words negatively.

[LadyShea]

I actually wrote that sentence. Maybe I will take it out. I didn't know it would cause such a problem. He just wrote this:

If there are a certain number of homosexual
relationships that remain, no one will judge or criticize these unions
since this is a first blow which can no longer be justified.


And don't tell me you don't know what he wrote and what I wrote. I didn't change the major concepts, and he gave me permission to add whatever I felt would add to the book.

What do you mean YOU WROTE IT? This is not the first time you are suddenly the author of a sentence or passage that has been criticized. We have discussed this passage how many times now? And you've continually lied by omission by not claiming authorship? And why would he start a sentence with "if" like that, tied to nothing and referring to nothing? That would make zero sense. You are lying now, aren't you? Claiming responsibility to keep it off Lesssans?

If you really did write it, you are still a dishonest person unless you name yourself co-author formally on the cover. There's nothing wrong with being a co-author, I told you before I own several books like this, but it is dishonest to not differentiate between the original author's words and your additions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

If environment plays a role in sexual orientation, then why shouldn't we believe that heterosexual relations will decline? And that homosexual relations will increase? Or that something else altogether will happen, or that nothing much will change at all with regard to sexual orientation and relatios? What the fuck is the basis for his claim?

Nothing! Just old Seymour pulling it out of his ass again, just like he did his smiling molecules of light!

No, the truth is that more people are heterosexual. That's just the way it is, although everybody deserves equal treatment regardless, and that's exactly what the world is gravitating toward. And he never said light is static. You just want to make fun and put him in a bad light. You can't stand that he might be right. Why else would you keep coming back with insult after insult?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since he concluded that homosexual unions would "naturally declined once blame is removed from the environment" he very clearly assumed that homosexuality is caused by an environment that includes blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what? What is so wrong about saying that homosexuality will naturally decline when there is no more blame or judgment?

It's a faulty conclusion because the premise is not conceded or evidenced.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean YOU WROTE IT? This is not the first time you are suddenly the author of a sentence or passage that has been criticized. We have discussed this passage how many times now? And you've continually lied by omission by not claiming authorship? And why would he start a sentence with "if" like that, tied to nothing and referring to nothing? That would make zero sense. You are lying now, aren't you? Claiming responsibility to keep it off Lesssans?

I changed the definition of epistemology to include empiricism, thanks to Spacemonkey, and I admitted that I included this sentence because it made it for smoother reading. I changed where I inserted any mention of homosexuality, and I didn't include anything about homosexuality declining in the new world. Thank you for making me see that this wasn't a good thing to put in.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Five: Premarital Relations p. 154

All the factors truly responsible for premarital promiscuity,
adultery, and divorce are removed because man is prevented from
desiring the very things for which blame and punishment, moral
judgment and criticism were previously necessary. A boy and girl
will have no choice in this matter of marriage as it will be their
only source of sexual satisfaction, and the girls will have no
opportunity of becoming ‘bad.’ Under these conditions there is no
possibility for unrequited love to develop. Sex, which takes place
the moment it is mutually desired, is the holiest of all unions
because it is steeped in a feeling of mutual respect and love. No
one need ever fear for this couple because love will ripen to
maturity after marriage, never before, and everything in the past
that gave rise to adultery and divorce will be precluded, as you will
soon see.

Now tell me, in this kind of world where boys and girls
get married very young (it wouldn’t matter whether the union was
heterosexual or homosexual, the principles would still apply)
and then live happily ever after, can prostitution develop or
continue to exist? Is it possible for them to desire any kind of
adulterous relation, ANY KIND, when they are so satisfied
with their partner that just the thought never enters their mind?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you really did write it, you are still a dishonest person unless you name yourself co-author formally on the cover. There's nothing wrong with being a co-author, I told you before I own several books like this, but it is dishonest to not differentiate between the original author's words and your additions.

No, I am not a co-author just because I added a sentence here and there to clarify the point that Lessans was making. I had nothing to do with the authorship of this book LadyShea, and I will not take credit. Call me whatever you want.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean YOU WROTE IT? This is not the first time you are suddenly the author of a sentence or passage that has been criticized. We have discussed this passage how many times now? And you've continually lied by omission by not claiming authorship? And why would he start a sentence with "if" like that, tied to nothing and referring to nothing? That would make zero sense. You are lying now, aren't you? Claiming responsibility to keep it off Lesssans?

If you really did write it, you are still a dishonest person unless you name yourself co-author formally on the cover. There's nothing wrong with being a co-author, I told you before I own several books like this, but it is dishonest to not differentiate between the original author's words and your additions.

Given Peacegirl's obvious memory problems, I doubt she has any clear idea at this point of which words originated from Lessans and which she may have added herself. And given how defending Lessans is clearly far more important to her than any kind of basic honesty or integrity, it should come as no surprise that she will willingly assume responsibility for any given quote that is so blatantly wrong that she ends up arguing against it herself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the truth is that more people are heterosexual. That's just the way it is, although everybody deserves equal treatment regardless, and that's exactly what the world is gravitating toward. And he never said light is static. You just want to make fun and put him in a bad light. You can't stand that he might be right. Why else would you keep coming back with insult after insult?

More people are heterosexual. So what? Why should Daddy's bogus utopia mean that the people who are gay, will stop being gay? You have no idea, do you? All you have is his idiotic say so. He gave no reason why this should be so -- just that it would be so! So sayeth Seymour!

And yes, he DID say that light is static when it arrives at earth. This is a thoroughly idiotic claim, but unlike you, at least he posited that light does something when it arrives at earth. According to you, it is not absorbed, it is not reflected, it does not travel and it does not cease to exist! Apparently you have failed to notice that there are no other options for the behavior of photons, other than all the options that you have ruled out!

Just go check back where he says that the SAME light that falls on the earth while we sleep, "smiles" on us when we wake up! What does that mean, other than that he thought that light stopped and hung around when it arrived on earth? What, peacegirl? Once again, you have no idea, am I right?

And, as to his claim that it is a mathematical certainty that married couples will no longer share the same bed: since this is a mathematical claim, would you care to show the equation that describes and predicts this amazing phenomenon? Because Seymour sure didn't show it! And if there is no equation, there is no math.

I guess Seymour just didn't grok that fact!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a faulty conclusion because the premise is not conceded or evidenced.

But that's what you say about the entire book; that it's not evidenced so it's a faulty conclusion or a conclusion that comes from conjecture. But I do see your point when it comes to writing anything that could be misinterpreted. The last thing I want to do is turn people off unnecessarily, especially an entire group of people.