A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Also, it turns out that the girls -- or "goils," as Lessans calls them at one point; I guess it must have been his New Joisey accept migrating into print -- will wear VERY revealing clothing , much more so than today, to advertise their "charms."

Let's see -- Mom's slaving in the kitchen to prepare an ever-lenghtening roster of tasty and nutritious meals without blaming anyone or feeling angry if teh kids don't eat; and the "goils" are wearing very revealing clothing and putting out after a "very short acquaintence."

I wonder whose wet dream this is?

[davidm]

As a result of the
changes about to take place, every couple will fall mutually in love
with their first date which makes a marriage ceremony a thing of the
past...

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doctor X, I am actually laughing, . . .

No, you are crying.

You have not even read what you try to sell.

You FAIL again

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, it turns out that the girls -- or "goils," as Lessans calls them at one point; I guess it must have been his New Joisey accept migrating into print -- will wear VERY revealing clothing , much more so than today, to advertise their "charms."

Let's see -- Mom's slaving in the kitchen to prepare an ever-lenghtening roster of tasty and nutritious meals without blaming anyone or feeling angry if teh kids don't eat; and the "goils" are wearing very revealing clothing and putting out after a "very short acquaintence."

I wonder whose wet dream this is?

Will there be Bimbos?!!!

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Will there be Bimbos?!!!

--J.D.

It looks like ALL the girls are bimbos in Lessan's wet dream the Golden Age!

Still can't find any mention of teh gayz, though.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Anyone who calls me an idiot is an idiot. Goodbye David.

Indeed, calling you an "idiot" neglects the the willful nature of your ignorance:

That's right Otto! Calling you "stupid" is an insult to the stupid people! I've worn dresses smarter than you!

--Wanda Gerscherwitz

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

It looks like ALL the girls are bimbos in Lessan's wet dream the Golden Age!

Still can't find any mention of teh gayz, though.

So, for peacegirl feminism is "something that happened to other people."

Rather like "education."

--J.D.

[davidm]

Uh-oh, it looks like Lessans is against vaccinations, too.

[davidm]

More wisdom:

It is
important to remember that we are using a mathematical principle to
guide us in determining what our response should be. Since we
cannot blame the child for anything according to God’s corollary,
Thou Shall Not Blame, it is obvious that all knowledge that tries to
teach that it is healthier to wake children for a feeding is
mathematically wrong. It is quite clear that if you wake a child for
anything at all, you are blaming him for sleeping.

[davidm]

Also, don't wake a child if it needs to take a prescribed medication, because if you do, are blaming the child for sleeping. The author encourages you to call your doctor and tell him that your friend, "the discoverer of certain knowledge that will change the world," said that sleep was more important than to be awakened for medication.

[davidm]

Here is a line the author uses at one point that I am especially fond of:

... he is compelled, of his own free will, ...

[Doctor X]

Hey, to do that is MATHEMATICALLY WRONG, davidm



--J.D.

P.S. So I guess vaccination and basic pharmacology is division-by-zero? Not surprised peacegirl FAIL'd to figure out the division-by-zero exercise earlier.

[Doctor X]

This has become almost cruel:



peacegirl should have worn a better hat

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I would appear that you don't understand what constitutes evidence. None of the points in your response are evidence for Lessans' claims. I see several unsupported assertions, but no evidence.

Angakuk, the only evidence there is is the actual proof, which are his observations. If you can't see the proof of why man's will is not free; if you can't see the proof of how conscience works in regard to blame and punishment; if you can't see the proof of why we must take responsibility when we can't shift the blame for what we have done; if you can't see the proof as to how the two-sided equation works, then in your mind there is no proof. But is that his fault?

[Kael]

Observations are not proof. Consult your local dictionary.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is a line the author uses at one point that I am especially fond of:

You are a very poor learner davidm. He uses this phrase through the entire book, but obviously you missed his explanation. Could it be you are looking for flaws that aren't there and it frustrates you to no end that he could be right?

Determinism was
faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that
heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the
proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not
caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do
it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption
or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do
anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.
This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. The
expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when
it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing
compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted
because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is
correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted
to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use
the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only
means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Observations are not proof. Consult your local dictionary.

Kael, observations can be evidence, if the observations are correct. If I observe apples falling from trees everywhere I go, my observations are most likely correct. Evidence does not have to be through experiment [only]. If people keep saying to me "show me the evidence" and are looking for experimental data, then they won't find it. Do you understand how conscience works? This is an important pillar of his discovery.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a very poor learner davidm.

Moi?

He uses this phrase through the entire book, but obviously you missed his explanation. Could it be you are looking for flaws that aren't there and it frustrates you to no end that he could be right?

The
expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when
it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing
compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’

So, the author himself says that free will means that one could have acted otherwise, had one desired to do so.

OK.

And then the author says,

"compelled, of my own free will..."

And you think his first definition is the same as the second?

Let me explain something to you. The phrase "compelled, of my own free will," is self-contradictory.

You see, Lessans is a crackpot, and his book is littered with self-contradictory and/or incoherent crap like this. It's the sign of a crank. As is his printing his letter to Richard Nixon and his letter to the news media, his whining about how no one will listen to him, his comparison of himself to Christ. All classic signs of terminal crankdom.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, don't wake a child if it needs to take a prescribed medication, because if you do, are blaming the child for sleeping. The author encourages you to call your doctor and tell him that your friend, "the discoverer of certain knowledge that will change the world," said that sleep was more important than to be awakened for medication.

No matter how you misconstrue what he is saying, it doesn't phase me because I allow for the source. He is extending the principle of 'no blame' into every area of human relation. When you wake a child (unless there is a fire or other serious reason to do this which he would want you to do) for his dose of medicine, you are blaming him for sleeping. You are making a judgment of what is better for him is better than what his body is telling him.

Obviously, if by not taking that particular dose of medicine the child would have a seizure or possibly die, of course you would wake him up. You are so far removed from understanding this knowledge, it's laughable. And what's getting in the way is your pride.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter how you misconstrue what he is saying, it doesn't phase me because I allow for the source. He is extending the principle of 'no blame' into every area of human relation. When you wake a child (unless there is a fire or other serious reason to do this which he would want you to do) for his dose of medicine, you are blaming him for sleeping. You are making a judgment of what is better for him is better than what his body is telling him.

Obviously, if by not taking that particular dose of medicine the child would have a seizure or possibly die, of course you would wake him up. You are so far removed from understanding this knowledge, it's laughable. And what's getting in the way is your pride.

Moi?

Actually, I'm enjoying this book tremendously. It's so thoroughly goddamned goofy I'm laughing out loud nearly every page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, don't wake a child if it needs to take a prescribed medication, because if you do, are blaming the child for sleeping. The author encourages you to call your doctor and tell him that your friend, "the discoverer of certain knowledge that will change the world," said that sleep was more important than to be awakened for medication.

Sorry for the repeat, but I'm leaving it in because davidm seems to need extra help in understanding these principles. I am laughing at how you are trying to discredit this author but you can't do it. Sleep comes when the body needs it. If you awaken a child to give him medicine, you are assuming that his body needs the medicine more than the sleep. This is what he means by blaming the child for sleeping. If there was a fire or an illness that required the child to take his medicine (e.g., he could have seizures without his medicine; he could have a hard time without his inhaler), then he would want you to awaken him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Moi?

So, the author himself says that free will means that one could have acted otherwise, had one desired to do so.

OK.

And then the author says,

"compelled, of my own free will..."

And you think his first definition is the same as the second?

Let me explain something to you. The phrase "compelled, of my own free will," is self-contradictory.

You see, Lessans is a crackpot, and his book is littered with self-contradictory and/or incoherent crap like this. It's the sign of a crank. As is his printing his letter to Richard Nixon and his letter to the news media, his whining about how no one will listen to him, his comparison of himself to Christ. All classic signs of terminal crankdom.

All he means is that one is compelled (and if you don't understand why he is compelled, I think you're a lost cause), of his own free will (meaning because he wants to; nothing is forcing him to do it). This is not contradictory at all. The very first chapter explains this. This just shows me utterly confused you are.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, it turns out that the girls -- or "goils," as Lessans calls them at one point; I guess it must have been his New Joisey accept migrating into print -- will wear VERY revealing clothing , much more so than today, to advertise their "charms."

Let's see -- Mom's slaving in the kitchen to prepare an ever-lenghtening roster of tasty and nutritious meals without blaming anyone or feeling angry if teh kids don't eat; and the "goils" are wearing very revealing clothing and putting out after a "very short acquaintence."

I wonder whose wet dream this is?

Oh, dearie me. It's Slobberinism without d'islan' or the intellectual curiosity!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry for the repeat, but I'm leaving it in because davidm seems to need extra help in understanding these principles. I am laughing at how you are trying to discredit this author but you can't do it. Sleep comes when the body needs it. If you awaken a child to give him medicine, you are assuming that his body needs the medicine more than the sleep. This is what he means by blaming the child for sleeping. If there was a fire or an illness that required the child to take his medicine (e.g., he could have seizures without his medicine; he could stop breathing without his inhaler), he would want you to awaken him.

Thank you very much for your explanation.

[davidm]

The author's own words:

It is quite clear that if you wake a child for
anything at all, you are blaming him for sleeping.

Bold mine.