A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Um,...
Huh?!?

To clarify: if a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him.

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs regardless of what her features are like.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Um,...
Huh?!?

What he meant by that comment was that if love fails between a male and female, people may try other arrangements to meet their needs. He didn’t intend it to be discriminatory against people with different genetic predispositions. That said, I can see where his comment could be misconstrued. His earlier books show otherwise. This afterthought has nothing to do with the soundness of the basic principle. He even said that he could make a mistake in how he extended the principles but that does not invalidate the principles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

To clarify: if a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him.

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs regardless of what her features are like.

This just shows how offended you are regarding the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ. There is no way I can change your attitude. That’s your job. His claim will require further testing. It is not unfalsifiable. It's so sad because you are being way premature as usual. You are making people laugh out of ignorance just like you. You are not a philosopher. You're an idiot.

[davidm]

I want to lick your
Juicy, juicy cunt, as who
Doesn’t? I-Homos.

[davidm]

No philosopher,
ChuckF. An idiot. But,
Also true steward.








#TrueStewardship

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

98% of homo-sexual intercourse comes into existence only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love

So true. Bear in mind, too, that in the New World, it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to share a bed, because asking your spouse to sleep with you is a form of advance blaming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, for one thing, Hitler and Tim McVeigh are not to blame for anything they did because their will was not free ("Would you blame a robot?" as peacegirl herself wrote).

Actually, they did what they did because of their beliefs that they were doing the right thing IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. Obviously, they would have to be taken off the streets. But this is completely hypothetical given the changed conditions. You can't compare what happened in the past to what will happen when this knowledge is put into effect.

Originally Posted by Maturin

However, ChuckF is entirely to blame for his actions/omissions in these threads because . . . reasons.

Looking in total perspective he's not to blame for his posts, but my reaction to him isn't either. He thinks he's justified because he thinks he's right, but he has failed in every attempt.

Originally Posted by Maturin

On the scientific front, "the speed of light would need to be recalculated" based on Seymour Lessans's views regarding the function of dog eyes. peacegirl has gone back and forth multiple times on the issue of recalculating light speed, and I don't know where she currently stands.

The speed of light has nothing to do with the way we see.

Originally Posted by Maturin

Also, there are "internet checkers" that vet online statements for accuracy and remove inaccurate statements. To her credit, peacegirl (I think) no longer believes in internet checkers.

Yea, that was kinda silly of me, wasn't it? Nothing to do with this discovery. Stop grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Maturin

Moreover, there's the immortality-via-pronoun-usage thing.

In the final analysis, it's not really possible to trust anything peacegirl says about her dad's writings. There are dozens of examples here of peacegirl vehemently disagreeing with direct quotes from what she claims are daddy-o's statements.

OMG, if you only knew how comforting this knowledge is to those who are older and going to die soon, you would jump at the chance to understand this chapter. But you're too concerned with being right. Oh well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So true. Bear in mind, too, that in the New World, it will be mathematically impossible for a husband and wife to share a bed, because asking your spouse to sleep with you is a form of advance blaming.

Very true David, this knowledge doesn't ignore the little things that can cause conflict between couples. Keeping someone in bed with you because of some unspoken rule that this is what marriage demands, is unhealthy. These little expectations can lead to bigger problems such as divorce if not caught early.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No philosopher,
ChuckF. An idiot. But,
Also true steward.


#TrueStewardship

I put all of his books online for anyone who wants to read them. Right from the horse’s mouth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I want to lick your
Juicy, juicy cunt, as who
Doesn’t? I-Homos.

He wrote this in order to let the reader know that these words hurt no one when in a loving committed relationship. This was the 20th century where these words were not used for fear of being perverse. Once again, you have grabbed at anything you can to give people the wrong impression of him.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I put all of his books online for anyone who wants to read them. Right from the horse’s mouth.

You put the corrupted text online. ChuckF has the authentic, unbowdlerized text. ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

#TrueStewardship

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I want to lick your
Juicy, juicy cunt, as who
Doesn’t? I-Homos.

Originally Posted by davidm

You put the corrupted text online. ChuckF has the authentic, unbowdlerized text. ChuckF is the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

#TrueStewardship

I put all of his authentic works online. They don’t need Chuck.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're pulling out all the stops in your little arsenal, but you can't hurt him no matter how hard you try.

Seymour died over three decades ago; he's way past "hurt." Perhaps you should consider letting the poor man go.

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Um,...
Huh?!?

Exactly.

There are three types of homo-sexuals (note the correct spelling, which we find in Seymour's authentic writings but not in the corruptions peacegirl has been unsuccessfully peddling online for decades): glandular, inherited, and environmental. Seymour tells us that 98% of all homo-sexual activity comes from environmental homo-sexuals, who do what they do "only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

peacegirl elaborated on this several times in another thread. You see, environmental homo-sexual men are actually het; they are sexually attracted to women and women alone. Trouble is, they are so flouncingly effeminate that no woman will bang them. In the Golden Age, with environmental barriers removed, women will gleefully bang such men regardless of how much flouncing they do. In this age, though, despite being sexually attracted to women only, these men go up in the backsides of similarly situated men because . . . reasons.

Seymour also advised that all sexual conduct other than old-fashioned, down-home, country-style p-in-v intercourse with intent to procreate is "perversion," but - and this is very important - not in the derogatory sense.

I hope this clears things up for you, Lars.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs regardless of what her features are like.

Even if those features include "an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair [sic] lip, and she lisps and stutters." The shtuppathon of the Golden Age will include circus freaks.

[-FX-]

This topic has become awesome

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Seymour died over three decades ago; he's way past "hurt." Perhaps you should consider letting the poor man go.

His discovery will eventually be brought to light in spite of your lulz.

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Um,...
Huh?!?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Exactly.

There are three types of homo-sexuals (note the correct spelling, which we find in Seymour's authentic writings but not in the corruptions peacegirl has been unsuccessfully peddling online for decades): glandular, inherited, and environmental. Seymour tells us that 98% of all homo-sexual activity comes from environmental homo-sexuals, who do what they do "only because boys and girls are denied the opportunity to indulge with the opposite sex and fall in love."

peacegirl elaborated on this several times in another thread. You see, environmental homo-sexual men are actually het; they are sexually attracted to women and women alone. Trouble is, they are so flouncingly effeminate that no woman will bang them. In the Golden Age, with environmental barriers removed, women will gleefully bang such men regardless of how much flouncing they do. In this age, though, despite being sexually attracted to women only, these men go up in the backsides of similarly situated men because . . . reasons.

He was trying to show how the environment could have an impact. He wasn't making a judgment against homosexuality. In fact, there was only one other mention of homosexuality in his books.

“I agree, Charlie, but what about the marriages that are
already here? And what about homosexuals?”
“In a relatively short period of time, only the new
marriages will be in existence. As for homosexuals, they are
free to find a partner without blame. This is their business.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Seymour also advised that all sexual conduct other than old-fashioned, down-home, country-style p-in-v intercourse with intent to procreate is "perversion," but - and this is very important - not in the derogatory sense.

He was writing in accordance with the times he was living. People used that word because they believed that anyone who deviated from the missionary position was a pervert. He was trying to show that using dirty words and all the rest would help keep marriages together. Why are you lying through your teeth?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Even if those features include "an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair [sic] lip, and she lisps and stutters." The shtuppathon of the Golden Age will include circus freaks.

You're running out of things to laugh at. There is no way anyone who has not read this chapter could understand the point he was making, yet this knowledge can actually save lives.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yep, after all this time it still delivers the lulz:

You wouldn't be laughing if you had been in his shoes. He knew war could come to an end but because he was an unknown, he couldn't get an audience. He was correct that no politician has the answer to the problems that are confronting us, and it's still going on today. He felt sad and desperate after so many years. He was grasping at anything that could get him some publicity. He knew there was a possibility it would be thrown out, which is what occurred. Blame him all you want.

[davidm]

So, peacegirl, is this it, or not?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Even if those features include "an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair [sic] lip, and she lisps and stutters." The shtuppathon of the Golden Age will include circus freaks.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

To clarify: if a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him.

He will then fall in love with her sexual organs regardless of what her features are like.

If people haven't read Chapter Four and Eleven, they won't understand why this statement is true. We often get criticized for our choice in partners but when all critical judgment is removed, and we find someone who is as ready for commitment as we are, it won't be hard to find someone to marry because the standards we use today will be obsolete. What will matter the most is physical attraction, but it is important to understand that when children growing up are not conditioned by words such as beautiful and ugly (which words are not symbolic of reality), it will be much easier to find someone who appeals to us because there will be no standard that judges some people more valuable physically than others except on a personal level.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, is this it, or not?

It's not. You understand some of it but you want to simplify it to such an extent that it looks ridiculous. No one would be excited to read a 6-sentence summary that took this author 30 years and 7 books to write. It doesn't work. Why is it so hard for people to read Chapter One and Two? You never read it in its entirety. No one has. It's nuts. I'm not even asking people to read chapter three, although I think it would peak their interest. And please speak for yourself when you say "we get it."

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... No one would be excited to read a 6-sentence summary that took this author 30 years and 7 books to write. ...

I would.

It doesn't work. Why is it so hard for people to read Chapter One and Two?

Too much rambling. That's what ruined it for me.

You never read it in its entirety. No one has.

Again, too much rambling.

It's nuts. I'm not even asking people to read chapter three, although I think it would peak their interest. And please speak for yourself when you say "we get it."

Too much rambling. (But then, I already said that.)

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was writing in accordance with the times he was living. People used that word because they believed that anyone who deviated from the missionary position was a pervert. He was trying to show that using dirty words and all the rest would help keep marriages together. Why are you lying through your teeth?

It's disheartening, though unsurprising, to see that your comprehension of the Authentic Text is so spectacularly deficient. Of course, it is not for me to correct you. That thankless task falls to the True Steward of Seymour Lessans's intellectual legacy. He is likely at work1 right now, but will no doubt provide the necessary correction as time allows.

1In the virtually certain event you don't understand what that entails, please let me know and I will explain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It's disheartening, though unsurprising, to see that your comprehension of the Authentic Text is so spectacularly deficient. Of course, it is not for me to correct you. That thankless task falls to the True Steward of Seymour Lessans's intellectual legacy. He is likely at work1 right now, but will no doubt provide the necessary correction as time allows.

1In the virtually certain event you don't understand what that entails, please let me know and I will explain.

It's such bullshit. At this point your only goal is to undermine this knowledge with anything you can, even though they are outright lies. The word sorry is not in your vocabulary. You have no integrity.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not. You understand some of it but you want to simplify it to such an extent that it looks ridiculous. No one would be excited to read a 6-sentence summary that took this author 30 years and 7 books to write. It doesn't work. Why is it so hard for people to read Chapter One and Two? You never read it in its entirety. No one has. It's nuts. I'm not even asking people to read chapter three, although I think it would peak their interest. And please speak for yourself when you say "we get it."

Whch part did I NOT undertstand, peacegirl?

Stop bullshitting yourself. EVERYTHIHG can be summarized in a few graphs, including the hardest stuff known to the minds of man, stuff like quantum mechanics, which Einstein among other broke his brain over. But after the summary, you explain that to fully understand the material, you have to read the book. This is how it is done. NOBODY understands quantum mechanics just by reading the summary of it, but the summary CAN help people prepare for what they are about to study. (Actually, nobody understands quantum mechanics AFTER studying it, either, but that’s another story.)

How many goddamn times over the last 20 years have people asked you to summarize the finding, including just the other day FX right here, and you produce NOTHING? And then everyone thinks you don’t understand the stuff yourself. Of course people think you are either a con artist or a loon.

If you don’t think the summary is good enough, work with me to refine it. I really am trying to help you, sincerely, because TBH, I do think sometines we were a little mean to you. Not that you don’t deserve it, lol, but even so, I am willing to put all that aside and help you craft a summary that you can work with. And always keep in mind, you tell people the summary is not enough to fully understand the work, you have to study the work itself.