A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All of this completely ignores the fact that there is not one single reason to believe in efferent sight, or baby fairies.

What about adult fairies? Where do you think they come from Mister Smarty McSmarty-Pants. The existence of adult fairies is compelling evidence for the existence of baby fairies, so take your condescending sarcasm and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[davidm]

Back to dogs! Poor peacegirl!

1. As has been explained to her, there is no reason to think that a dog SHOULD recognize its master from a photograph, if the scientific account of seeing is correct; any more than there is reason to think that humans should recognize patterns on flowers that can only be seen in the ultraviolet.

BUT!

2. ITT, it has been shown that dogs can recognize their masters from photographs, and from videos, too.

But peacegirl's little mind always does a data dump, goes to RESET, and returns where it started, forgetting all the things that we have patiently taught her. Truly pathetic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Back to dogs! Poor peacegirl!

1. As has been explained to her, there is no reason to think that a dog SHOULD recognize its master from a photograph, if the scientific account of seeing is correct; any more than there is reason to think that humans should recognize patterns on flowers that can only be seen in the ultraviolet.

You're weaseling again. He did not say that a dog should recognize a frequency that he is not capable of. He was saying that if the eyes are a sense organ, he should be able to recognize a picture of his beloved owner, if the image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain, just like he has instant recognition of his owner from his sense of smell and sound.

Originally Posted by davidm

BUT!

2. ITT, it has been shown that dogs can recognize their masters from photographs, and from videos, too.

Show me where a dog recognizes his master from a still picture or video. So far the conclusions have been unreliable.

Originally Posted by davidm

But peacegirl's little mind always does a data dump, goes to RESET, and returns where it started, forgetting all the things that we have patiently taught her. Truly pathetic.

Taught me? What arrogance!! It's been a two-way street, but you would never admit it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if the eyes are a sense organ, he should be able to recognize a picture of his beloved owner if the image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain

That's not what optics says is happening in vision. As you should well know by now. Why do you keep saying it when you've been told how stupid you sound?

Additionally, seeing is not synonymous with recognition, as you've also been told and stated you agree with. So again, why do you keep saying this like it makes any sense?

And, once again why should they be able to recognize their owner from a picture? You have yet to explain it, you just keep asserting it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have people backing me up as we speak, and these individuals are not gullible, easily impressed people. Do you think I'm going to divulge who these people are? No way. I will wait for them to divulge their identify when the time is right. In fact, in many circles they are very well known, so don't be too quick to throw this discovery out now that others are getting involved.

Don't lie to us, Peacegirl. It makes you look silly. You know as well as we do that you have yet to convince a single person anywhere that Lessans' ideas have any validity or value.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, that was a total copout from you. I'll ask again: Peacegirl, what is prosopagnosia, and what is the relevance of prosopagnosia for the present topic?

Bump.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

True, but that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I can't in good conscience endorse any course of action that would bring about the demise of the stuff about the goils, dinner table rumpy-pumpy, translucent fuck garments, lawmakers who don't make laws, marriage without marriage, perfectly cooked spaghetti and meatballs, waking a sleeping child = blaming the child for sleeping, self-certified medical professionals, the inevitable demise of gays and fat chicks, the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness ... the list goes on and on.

And the stories! Surely you don't want to do away with the stories! Remember the one about how Lessans' sociopathic shitburger of a mother called a doctor to her home even though she wasn't sick, lied her sociopathic ass off about imaginary symptoms, and threw out the medication the doctor prescribed as a lesson to young Seymour? Pure gold, man, pure gold.

And the imaginary dialogue! Oh, the lulz that would have been lost!

You are one twisted dude, but I have to laugh at how you have tried to make this book into a comedy. The more you do this, the sweeter it will be when this knowledge is confirmed valid. I will get great satisfaction when I see you run with your tail between your legs due to embarrassment. And don't forget, what goes around comes around.

I must have been bored to do this (I'm waiting to hear from my formatter), but I will not let Stephen win. I will use his ridicule to promote this book. Bad press is better than no press. So for those of you who are genuinely interested in this discovery, the following are the phrases where these words were used, which paints a very different picture when these excerpts are read in context, although a full understanding of this book requires one to read the first three chapters before any other reading is done. This just shows how shallow these people can be. The rest of the book is just an extension of the principles.
--------------------------------------------

Stephen laughs at: mention of gay relationships (I took out
the part that people disagreed with. It was unnecessary).

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 if 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? Even self-gratification
— and there is nothing wrong with this because it hurts no one — will
not be preferred when their primary desire is to satisfy each other. In
our present world the advantage always went to the one who made the
other fall in love, for then it was possible to take or leave this other.
But now the boys and girls recognize that there is no advantage in
making someone fall in love unless it can be returned which makes the
sexes do everything in their power to reveal their true feelings as the
desire to go the extreme depends on loving, not just being loved.
----------------------------------
Stephen laughs at and calls Lessans' dead mother a sociopathic shitburger
because she wanted to show her son that he did not need the medicine
the doctor prescribed, although she paid him for his visit.

p. 287 My mother, being brought up to believe that the body can
recuperate if given the proper ingredients to facilitate the body’s
natural healing properties never did trust the knowledge of doctors.
I’ll never forget the time she had a doctor come to the house even
though she was perfectly well in order to teach me a lesson. She
pretended she was very sick and told the doctor she didn’t know what
was wrong. After examining her the doctor prescribed some medicine
which she ordered right away. He instructed her to follow the
directions carefully so that the medicine would take immediate effect.
Otherwise she could get sicker, he warned. When the medicine came
she said, “Now watch son,” as she poured the entire bottle right down
the drain. “Why did you do that, mom, you wasted it?” She replied,
“The doctor and pharmacist have to earn a living and I helped them
in this respect but I certainly don’t have to follow their advice. I
wasn’t even sick but the doctor prescribed medicine anyway. The
difference between him and I is that he has more faith in the medicine
and I have more faith in my body’s natural healing power.” A friend’s
mother who felt the same regarding the danger of doctors took
medicine prescribed when she was well and then vomited. She had
actually replaced it with some kind of emetic. Then she turned to her
son and said, “You see, just imagine what would have happened had
I taken the medicine when my body was too sick to eject that stuff.”
Montaigne observed this even in his own time when he said that in
trying to make him well his doctor nearly killed him. Why does the
public hand over so much power to the doctors?

The word ‘doctor’ itself is an unconscious standard for it is a
justification that symbolizes a logical assumption, and the fear that
exists in the minds of those who accept this assumption that they will
only get worse if they do not consult this individual is the lever upon
which unconscious ignorance further justifies its existence while being
granted a legal right to hurt others with impunity. In other words,
just supposing that the doctor does not have this knowledge, that in
spite of all he was taught he really doesn’t know, he just thinks he
does, then he is in a position to hurt others with impunity since he
was told by the school that he is a qualified physician. Only fear
makes an individual pretend to knowledge he does not possess but
doctors were compelled to do this as the lesser of two evils when their
income depended on this self-deception and dishonesty. How is it
humanly possible to be honest with yourself when this depends on
being honest with others, and how is it possible to be honest with
others when this results in a hurt to yourself? Because you get well
after swallowing all kinds of medicine or because you are able to
overcome a fear after consulting a psychiatrist for years does not prove
the doctor is responsible for your recovery. In fact, there is the very
strong possibility that in his effort to heal he may actually be causing
harm.

----------------------------

Stephen laughs at: psychological problems that will be eliminated in
the new world and allow people to maintain their natural weight
(his words: getting rid of fat chicks)

p. 157 By removing all the blame the pressure is also removed
because he can have a sexual relation immediately and there is no
possibility for unrequited love to develop, no chance for any girl to
be swept off her feet and lose her virginity out of wedlock, no
chance for a doublestandard to make some girls bad and others
good, no chance for a boy and girl to hurt each other in any way
where sex is concerned becauseall the factors truly responsible are
prevented from arising. In addition, once all the words are removed
that now judge some peopleas inferior physiognomic productions of
the human race, everybody becomes perfectly equal in value except
to the person making a choice.

One face is not better looking than another — just different —
although we will always find certain differences we like better. Couples
will strongly desire to retain the physical appearance that first
attracted their mate. Since these marriages will take place when boys
and girls are very young, and since all psychological impediments to
eating will be removed from birth, very few will be carrying excess
weight. However, some boys and girls are naturally heavy and there
will be no reason for them to worry in the new world because to
certain people this is a physical attraction. It is true that we have
already been conditioned to move in the direction of certain
preferences, but we cannot be hurt when these individuals reject us at
the very outset and when other choices in a mate will never be directly
or indirectly criticized.
------------------------------------------

Stephen laughs at: lawmakers who don't make laws

p. 267 However, the lawmakers will not be completely
displaced because they will serve a useful purpose. They will have the
job of analyzing every possibility of hurt that could occur, and make
it known. Whereas before we were controlled by the fear of
punishment which allowed those who thought they could beat the laws
to attempt things without any regard to who got hurt, we are now
prevented from desiring to disobey a law that is just because the fear
of being excused for hurting others offers no satisfaction when all the
principles are understood.


-------------------------------------
Stephen laughs at: self-certified medical professionals (but, of course,
he fails to understand that responsibility goes up, not down)

[I]p. 317 The great need to earn the money necessary to sustain his
standard of living which compelled the doctor to justify anything the
least bit questionable was the first blow of hurt because the law of
nature is self-preservation. Therefore, when doctors become citizens,
receive a guarantee that their standard of living will never go down,
and know for a fact that they will never again be blamed no matter
what happens, allowing them to drop their malpractice insurance and
increase their net income, they are compelled to move in a different
direction for greater satisfaction. In our present world it is necessary
for them to convince us that they can handle our problem, otherwise,
we would not employ them and they would not get paid for their
services, but under the changed conditions they do not have to
convince us, only themselves, that they know what they are doing, and
if in their professional opinion there is the slightest doubt that their
treatment might make matters worse for which they know there would
be no blame, their only justification to take this risk, since they
cannot be financially hurt or blamed for refusing to take on the job,
is when it appears to them that we would be worse off if they
prescribed nothing. By refusing to question their qualifications or
hold them responsible for our mistake in hiring them, they are
compelled to hold themselves responsible for hurting their patients
unless they can convince themselves that our getting worse or dying
was not because of anything they did.

< snip >

Since there will be no more diplomas or licenses, it will be up
to the students themselves to determine if they are qualified to put up
a shingle, open an office, and charge a fee. As for those who have
become citizens of the new world, there will be no such thing as legal
or illegal. They will know what is and what is not, a hurt, and they
will never desire to do anything that could hurt another.

<snip>

Chapter Three: The End of Carelessness

As for whether we need permission from the government to drive?
In our present environment we need a license and before this is
granted we are given certain tests to see if we qualify which means that
part of our responsibility has already been shifted. In other words,
people who are really not qualified to sit behind a wheel are made to
think that they are by receiving permission, and should someone make
the comment, “You shouldn’t be allowed to drive,” the response would
be, “The government thinks so or I wouldn’t have been given a
license.” In the new world there will be no such thing as a license to
drive because man has become of age and can now assume
responsibility for himself, therefore, the only person to tell you that
you are sufficiently trained and ready will be you yourself. No driver
henceforth will ever again be issued a license by a government
agency to determine his qualifications. This means that the division of
the Department of Motor Vehicles which determines the eligibility of a
new driver by administering a passing or a failing grade will be
permanently displaced. The fact that certain inadequate standards
were set up for others to determine our qualifications allowed many
unqualified people to assume they were qualified because they passed
the required exam. We will never again have to prove to anyone but
ourselves that we are qualified to drive and our vehicle is in good
condition. We can see very clearly why our responsibility must
increase to the maximum degree since this is the only way we can
prevent what we don’t want. Where before we couldn’t wait to pass
the test so we could finally go wherever we wanted, we will not be that
anxious to sit behind the wheel until we know for sure we can drive
without causing collisions or delays.
-----------------------------------

Stephen laughs at: The little girl who says "goils" because
she couldn't pronounce "girls". How mean-spirited is that?

p. 436 One father could not understand why his fraternal twins, a boy
and girl, were not satisfied, he with his toy soldier and she with her
doll. Very young children often want what others have only because
they see these differences and don’t understand why they can’t have
the same thing. Soon they begin crying which may then develop into
a full-blown tantrum. If you give a little boy a toy soldier and a girl
a doll, what is this but an encouragement for them to quarrel? In
reality, aren’t you discriminating if you give a little boy a toy soldier
and a little girl a doll? Why shouldn’t the boy want to play with the
doll and the girl with the soldier, and what if both should desire the
doll at the same time, what then? All this can be prevented by
realizing that every child must be given an equal opportunity to be
happy, which is denied when parents set up fallacious standards of
what is for a girl and what is for a boy. Let’s observe the following
dialogue.

“Justin, this doll belongs to Suzie; dolls are for little girls, not for
boys,” says the father.

“But I wanna play widda dolly.”

“Suzie, you’re older than Justin, so you be a big girl (this blames
him for not being big about it) and let Justin play with your doll just
for a little while and you play with his soldier.”

“No! Dolly mine; you get for Suzie, and you said dollies are for
goils, Daddy, and Justin is a boy, not a goil.”

So what’s the solution? If it is a soldier you wish to give a boy,
you must also give the same exact soldier to the girl; and if it is a doll
you wish to give to the girl, you will give the same exact doll to the
boy. When they discover that each has the same toy there can be no
possessiveness, no jealousy, no envy, and what is much more
important, no fighting to disturb your evenings. This is more for the
benefit of the parents than anything else. Wouldn’t it be wonderful
to get rid of all these things which cause such a disturbance and make
your living so much less enjoyable? Are you given a choice? But,
mind you, it is demonstrated that these things will take leave not
because they are worse for the children but because they are definitely
a source of dissatisfaction and unhappiness for the parents.
-------------------------

Stephen laughs at: dinner table rumpy-pumpy (there was no mention
of rumpy pumpy at the dinner table (David concocted that), and Stephen
concocted "translucent fuck garments". Great team.

p. 355 With sexual intercourse we have a slightly different problem
because this is something we cannot do alone yet to tell our partner
that we are in the mood and expect them to honor our desire or to
touch them in any way for that purpose takes for granted that they
also want to make love or be fondled at that moment of time.
Although sex requires two people we know that it is within our power
to arouse the desire of our partner to accept an invitation — which is
something we can do for ourselves. In our present world a husband
doesn’t care if he hurts his wife in various ways, nor does his wife,
because they have hurt each other so many times that it satisfies them
to strike back one way or another since they were unconscious of who
or what really struck the first blow. A husband may sexually starve his
wife — for which he cannot help — because the woman he married is
not the same person, and she blames him for her desire to have an
affair or she may starve him for the same reason. The wife would
punish her husband by refusing him because he refused her, and an
argument would follow. Should she reject him he justifies retaliation
by using the fallacious standard that it is her marital obligation to
have sex whenever he desires and she has also been taught that this is
her marital duty.

By obligating his wife he is tacitly blaming the
possibility of being refused which is a judgment that she should desire
to satisfy him. Therefore, so as not to hurt him by neglecting his
needs she forces herself to make love when not in the mood as the
lesser of two evils. Trying to get the desired response how many times
have you husbands and wives fondled each other in an effort to arouse
desire, thinking that this was right? And how many psychologists
have advised similar tactics which knowledge was justified by a Ph.D.
degree? If the husband is in the mood to make love and pounces on
his wife without considering her desire he would not be showing his
love because he is blaming her in advance for not wanting what he
wants.

In other words, the husband has failed to take into
consideration the possibility that his wife, at that moment, might not
want to move in that direction which is her business. Since this is an
act of selfishness because it is a judgment of what is expected — unless
both parties desire this sexual relationship — they cannot touch each
other in any way until an invitation is extended. By the same token
if she should ask him for sex because she is in the mood, this does not
show a feeling of love for him because she knows that he will do
anything to satisfy her which means that she is taking advantage.
When sexual overtures are made without any consideration for the
other’s feelings, the spouse who feels obligated to perform might lose
all sexual interest where the mere thought of sex becomes distasteful,
and this could jeopardize the relationship.

<snip>

So
many men have taken their wives for granted that it never dawned on
them that they can also buy very sexy clothing to be worn around the
house — translucent robes, jackets, etc., which will arouse
their wives to accept this invitation.

------------------------------------------
Stephen laughs at: waking a sleeping child = blaming the child for sleeping,

p. 427 The next thing proven completely false even though it contravenes
everything we have been taught to be true is the waking of a child for
anything at all, since this obviously blames his desire to sleep. As we
saw in Chapter Seven, when someone is asleep his body desires this
and for him to be awakened by a doctor or anybody unless his sleeping
is obviously harmful (such as a fire which would reveal his desire to be
awakened) you are imposing your desire and judging what is right for
him. This offers conclusive evidence that any fears a doctor may
impart regarding the necessity of waking a child to administer
medicine or for a feeding, examination, or anything else you care to
throw in, are completely unfounded and grounded in unconscious
ignorance. When a doctor advises these things it is only because you
are asking for some advice which he takes advantage of to earn a living
— for which he cannot be blamed. Therefore, it should be obvious
that the only way you can get your children out of bed without
blaming them for not wanting to get up at the desired time is to teach
them how to use an alarm clock. Then it will be entirely up to them.
If they desire to get up at a specific time; if they desire to go to school
— they will — and if they desire to sleep, there is nothing you can do
about it unless you blame them in some way. Furthermore, once the
blanket of blame is removed, once you cannot prevent this desire to
stay home from school without threats of punishment, then it is
obvious that the harm you perceive in their not receiving this type of
education is purely imaginary, but in today’s world the value placed on
going to school and the penalty the parents would receive if they
honored their children’s request to stay home compels them to make
their children do what they may not find any value in. In order to get
out of class they may try to come up with an excuse that sounds
reasonable. Do you see what is happening? We have been forcing our
children to prefer lying as a solution to their problems; then we blame
and punish them for what is not their responsibility as a solution to
our problems. In other words, we strike the first blow by judging what
is right for them, and then when they strike back by disagreeing with
our judgment we blame and punish them for doing what they preferred
under their set of circumstances which included the advance
knowledge that they would be blamed.

Stephen laughs at: spaghetti and meatballs

p. 449 If mother’s domain is to prepare the meals (and in most cases it
will be), her desire must be considered as well. She is not running a
restaurant and cannot be expected to cook an entire menu each and
every night, but at the same time she can no longer blame the children
for not eating what she cooks, therefore, she is given no alternative
but to prepare everything in such a tasty manner that her entire family
looks forward to eating at every meal because she can blame no one
anymore if they don’t eat. Because it is impossible for her to judge
that certain foods have greater value than others where another body
is concerned unless science has established mathematical facts, she will
be compelled to arrange a diversified variety over an entire week or two
weeks so that her children and husband will look forward to eating
certain meals on certain days. If the family likes spaghetti and
meatballs which is served on Monday, that morning they will look
forward to the evening when they will be served what they like.
Tuesday morning, knowing that mother will have something else that
evening, they will anticipate their evening meal just as they may look
forward to a certain television show or something else.
--------------------------------------

Stephen laughs at: marriage without marriage

p. 142 However,
because your mind may not be adequately attuned to the perception
of mathematical relations, I should like to put the horse before the
cart by asking you several questions. What is more important — that
a boy and girl get a license to indulge their sexual appetite, have a
religious ceremony, the blessing of a theologian, etc., or that they fall
mutually in love and live happily ever after? What is more important
to the parents, the health and happiness of their children, or the moral
code? If you were given a choice of marrying the person you love with
the certain knowledge that you are sure to find unhappiness, perhaps
be made a cuckold and end up getting a divorce, or given an
opportunity to live as man and wife (although not the way we
understand the term marriage in our present world) and instead of
unhappiness the greatest happiness imaginable would be your destiny
all through life, are you given a choice? Wouldn’t it be an insult to
man’s intelligence if we criticized and blamed a marriage celebrating
half a century of genuine happiness, a marriage in which there was
never a thought of another sexual partner, a marriage where there was
never an argument, just because this young boy and girl decided to get
married without a license, without the ceremony and blessing of a
rabbi or priest, without the exchange of rings? The fact that you
criticize such happiness because this couple did not conform to a
moral code is equivalent to criticizing someone who plays a perfect
hand of bridge because he failed to have the cards cut by the person on
his right, or equivalent to someone criticizing this book which reveals
only the perception of mathematical, undeniable relations because he
feels that a comma is in the wrong place.

< snip >

This entire situation is prevented when our basic principle, Thou
Shall Not Blame, extends into the world of love preventing the causes
that lead to these crimes of passion. Bear in mind that the
psychological problems stemming from childhood abuse and neglect
will be permanently removed; secondly, words that label some children
as inferior and others as superior will no longer be used in
conversational language; and thirdly, boys and girls will be prevented
from leading each other on with no intentions of marrying them. In
our present world a couple can have sexual intercourse without being
married, but in the new world this will be impossible because they are
one and the same. This amazing change is accomplished solely
with the aid of the knowledge that man’s will is not free. Bear constantly
in mind that the solution is based upon thenew world, a world in which
everyone knows in advance there will be no blame for anything that is
done.
-------------------------------

Stephen laughs at: the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness
(something he has no understanding of whatsoever)

p. 493 Now this potential mother and father still want their
first baby — they want YOU — which word symbolizes human living
substance, so they try again, but this time you are born only to die
one month later of a heart problem. Still persistent and having a lot
of fun they try again with viable success but 18 years later you end up
in a car accident where you die. Much older now, but still capable of
propagating, mom and dad are not satisfied to lose YOU, so they try
once more to bring YOU into existence. In actual reality, though
heredity differences exist between the three C’s, the word YOU is a
designation only for the viable substance that comes into the world
and is identified with a name to establish these differences which mom
and dad grow to love. But what is the difference between the potential
YOU who died during the uterine journey, the YOU who died one
month after birth, or the YOU who died 18 years later? Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived.

[LadyShea]

The rest of the book is just an extension of these principles. And they are not his.

What does "they" refer to and who does "his" refer to in that last sentence?

[LadyShea]

You are being dishonest with the imaginary interested persons.

1. You recently changed the original sentence regarding gays, after you finally admitted that Lessans hadn't written that part at all, but YOU had.

The original text was:
"Homosexual relations "will naturally decline when all blame is removed from the environment"

2. There is no context that can make this anything other than a totally bizarre and dishonest thing to do, especially in the name of teaching a child. This is mental, in fact.

She pretended she was very sick and told the doctor she didn’t know what was wrong.

3. The no fat chicks referred to the passage about how wives will work very hard to stay thin and desirable and try to stay looking as they looked when they first met their husbands. You chose the wrong passage to be misleading

[But]

It's started again! We're on page 768 now. It's insane.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're weaseling again. He did not say that a dog should recognize a frequency that he is not capable of. He was saying that if the eyes are a sense organ, he should be able to recognize a picture of his beloved owner, if the image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain, just like he has instant recognition of his owner from his sense of smell and sound.

Except, you stupid retard, science does NOT say that "an image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain," as has been explained to you about a bazillion times. LIGHT strikes the retina, NOT an image.

Be that as it may, as has already been established in this thread, dogs CAN recognize the images of their masters from photographs AND from video. So Stupid Seymour was wrong anyway.

Show me where a dog recognizes his master from a still picture or video. So far the conclusions have been unreliable.

Of course it's unreliable to you. If Stupid Seymour had claimed that the earth was flat and that it had been farted into existence by a team of tap-dancing certified public accountants dressed in drag, then you would deem any evidence showing such an idiotic claim to be false to be unreliable.

Taught me? What arrogance!! It's been a two-way street, but you would never admit it.

What have you taught anyone here? That you're a moron?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

It's started again! We're on page 768 now. It's insane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

if the eyes are a sense organ, he should be able to recognize a picture of his beloved owner if the image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not what optics says is happening in vision. As you should well know by now. Why do you keep saying it when you've been told how stupid you sound?

Why are you getting so defensive? I'm just trying to understand the discrepency between sight and the other senses. I don't care about the exact words I'm using; you should know by now what I mean.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally, seeing is not synonymous with recognition, as you've also been told and stated you agree with. So again, why do you keep saying this like it makes any sense?

It does not make sense that a dog can identify his owner when he hears his voice; and can identify his owner through the sense of smell, so WHY can't he identify his owner through his sense of sight? This is a very legitimate question and to tell me that his brain doesn't register this is not a satisfactory explanation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, once again why should they be able to recognize their owner from a picture? You have yet to explain it, you just keep asserting it.

Why? You tell me? If you can't explain why the sense of sight is different than the other senses (that adds up), then you're not sure yourself.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen, with all due respect, you are incorrect in your observation that I could never admit that Lessans was wrong, if he was wrong.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only time will tell, so I think the prudent thing to do is to reserve your comments until further testing is done, otherwise, you will end up realizing that you prejudged this knowledge as being erroneous, too soon.

Further testing of what? You realize that we've dissected and examined every physical component of the human visual system and actually observed that the structures are afferent, right? In that regard, there's nothing left to test.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yea, laughing at his expense ...

Given the fact that Lessans is long dead, my laughter couldn't possibly come "at his expense," could it now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

will eventually blow up in your face (if you're still on this earth when this discovery is brought to light)

If believing that makes your existence a bit more tolerable, you go right ahead and believe it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but you obviously find greater satisfaction laughing at him than not, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Amen, sista.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

one day you will have misgivings, especially when your ignorant comments are going to be online for everyone to muse at.

Hey, I'm not the one who said that the speed of light needs to be recalculated or that everything you find on websites is factually accurate because of Internet Checkers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are one twisted dude ...

Yes, I know, I am awesome.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I have to laugh at how you have tried to make this book into a comedy.

Trying to make the Sacred Text into a comedy would be like trying to make The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich into a history book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The more you do this, the sweeter it will be when this knowledge is confirmed valid. I will get great satisfaction when I see you run with your tail between your legs due to embarrassment.

Again, whatever gets you through the Dickensian horror of your daily existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must have been bored to do this ...

Bored, obsessed .. six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I will not let Stephen win.

Too late. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So for those of you who are genuinely interested in this discovery ...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the following are the phrases where these words were used

And now we can add "phrases" to the burgeoning list of words you don't understand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: mention of gay relationships (I took out the part that people disagreed with. It was unnecessary).

Seems I was laughing at Lessans unjustly! As LadyShea pointed out in #19183 (), YOU were the author of that hateful, ill-informed homophobic drivel. Makes one wonder just how much (or little) Lessans had to with this abomination.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at and calls Lessans' dead mother a sociopathic shitburger because she wanted to show her son that he did not need the medicine the doctor prescribed, although she paid him for his visit.

Hey, remember when folks were ripping on that story the first time and you tried to blow it off by suggesting that Lessans might have made the whole thing up? Good times, eh?

And yes, she was indeed a sociopathic shitburger. The world is better place because of her being worm food. Here's hoping she died slowly and painfully. If there is a hell, she is surely in it.

Oh, and that's a lovely justification defense, by the way. By that logic, killing a person who serves as her family's sole breadwinner is a "no harm, no foul" situation so long as the killer pays the family a sum equal to the reasonably expected earnings of the victim over her lifetime.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: psychological problems that will be eliminated in the new world and allow people to maintain their natural weight (his words: getting rid of fat chicks)

The passage you quoted wasn't the one I was referring to, but you knew that. You pretended I was referring to a different passage because you're a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: self-certified medical professionals (but, of course, he fails to understand that responsibility goes up, not down)

I do laugh, but only because this stuff is very funny.

"I am qualified to assess the adequacy of my own qualifications because ... stfu I just am."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: dinner table rumpy-pumpy (there was no mention of rumpy pumpy at the dinner table (David concocted that), and Stephen concocted "translucent fuck garments". Great team.

Hey now! It was Vivisectus who came up with "rumpy-pumpy." Get it right already!

Anyhow, in the words of Lessans (or peacegirl -- who really knows?):

Should he not wish to wait until after dinner because he too was daydreaming and impatient to extend an invitation, they could have sex right then an there (assuming no little ones are around)

And why the assumption about the "little ones"? Why blame them for wanting to watch when "THOU SHALT NOT BLAME"?

translucent robes, jackets, etc., which will arouse
their wives to accept this invitation.

Because wearing a translucent fuck robe for to show off one's weh-weh is, like, totally different from saying, "Hey baby, howasbouta blow job?"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: waking a sleeping child = blaming the child for sleeping,

Yes, but only because it is very funny.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness (something he has no understanding of whatsoever)

No fair! That passage doesn't contain the germinal world of potential consciousness quote at all!

And where's the part about how the Holocaust was bad and all but really no biggie since it was necessary for God to prepare the world for the Golden Age? Was that stuff yours too? (Never mind. Don't bother answering. You are bereft of credibility.)

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1082930]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're weaseling again. He did not say that a dog should recognize a frequency that he is not capable of. He was saying that if the eyes are a sense organ, he should be able to recognize a picture of his beloved owner, if the image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain, just like he has instant recognition of his owner from his sense of smell and sound.

Originally Posted by davidm

Except, you stupid retard, science does NOT say that "an image is striking his retina and traveling to his brain," as has been explained to you about a bazillion times. LIGHT strikes the retina, NOT an image.

Semantics again. I am not going to take the bait.

Be that as it may, as has already been established in this thread, dogs CAN recognize the images of their masters from photographs AND from video. So Stupid Seymour was wrong anyway.

Of course it's unreliable to you. If Stupid Seymour had claimed that the earth was flat and that it had been farted into existence by a team of tap-dancing certified public accountants dressed in drag, then you would deem any evidence showing such an idiotic claim to be false to be unreliable.

Ugh, now you sound like Vivisectus. Give me a break. All you have to do is show me the proof. You can't do it.

Taught me? What arrogance!! It's been a two-way street, but you would never admit it.

Originally Posted by davidm

What have you taught anyone here? That you're a moron?

I have taught people a lot, if they care to listen. If not, they will learn nothing. Obviously, YOU are in the latter group.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense that a dog can identify his owner when he hears his voice; and can identify his owner through the sense of smell, so WHY can't he identify his owner through his sense of sight? This is a very legitimate question and to tell me that his brain doesn't register this is not a satisfactory explanation.

As per usual, your (loaded) question has been repeatedly answered, but you've paid no attention at all to the responses. Remember prosopagnosia? Do you understand our point in bringing it up?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? You tell me? If you can't explain why the sense of sight is different than the other senses (that adds up), then you're not sure yourself.

The sense of sight isn't different from the other senses in the way that you seem to think. There is no discrepancy to explain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are being dishonest with the imaginary interested persons.

1. You recently changed the original sentence regarding gays, after you finally admitted that Lessans hadn't written that part at all, but YOU had.

The original text was:
"Homosexual relations "will naturally decline when all blame is removed from the environment"

That is only true if there is an environmental component, which was clearly stated. This was not about an argument over nurture versus nature. But after this issue was blown out of proportion, I decided to take it out because it's not worth it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. There is no context that can make this anything other than a totally bizarre and dishonest thing to do, especially in the name of teaching a child. This is mental, in fact.

She pretended she was very sick and told the doctor she didn’t know what was wrong.

Thank you Miss Morality. You are the judge to know what is sick, and what everyone should say and do. I should call you God. LadyShea gauges everyone's moral compass and if they fail, they go to their room without supper.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. The no fat chicks referred to the passage about how wives will work very hard to stay thin and desirable and try to stay looking as they looked when they first met their husbands. You chose the wrong passage to be misleading

That's not the passage that was referred to earlier. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be attractive to one's spouse by keeping themselves in the best shape possible. If we have a physical problem, that's a different story, but who would not want to have their husbands or wives find them sexually attractive?

[davidm]

One of the imaginary goofballs reportedly lining up behind peacegirl

TRENDS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
Report: People Who in Many Circles are Very Well Known and Not Easily Impressed Are Backing Up Peacegirl Even as We Speak.

FREETHOUGHT FORUM (Internet News Service) -- People who in many circles are very well known and not easily impressed are backing up peacegirl even as we speak, it was reported Tuesday.

The bombshell revelation was made by peacegirl at the Freethought Forum message board in a pivotal post time-stamped 4:54 p.m.

"I have people backing me up as we speak, and these individuals are not gullible, easily impressed people," peacegirl wrote in the mind-bending post, which sent the senses reeling. "Do you think I'm going to divulge who these people are? No way. I will wait for them to divulge their identify when the time is right. In fact, in many circles they are very well known, so don't be too quick to throw this discovery out now that others are getting involved."

Although peacegirl declined to divulge the identity of these others are now "getting involved," informed sources described them as a diverse lot. They include manufacturers of translucent sex robes, purveyors of spaghetti and meatballs, artificers of sex toys to be used during dinner-table rumpy pumpy provided no little ones are present, and people who wish to practice medicine without earning a medical degree.

"In addition," said E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation, "peacegirl has evidently lined up an impressive array of knuckleheads, nyuk-nyuks, goofballs, individuals whose dice lack the requisite number of dots and people who are not the sharpest tools in the shed."

"What is especially noteworthy," Khan went on, "is that all these people are Imaginary Friends."

In other news, Maturin is one twisted dude, but his underpants are colored important.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As per usual, your (loaded) question has been repeatedly answered, but you've paid no attention at all to the responses. Remember prosopagnosia? Do you understand our point in bringing it up?

The sense of sight isn't different from the other senses in the way that you seem to think. There is no discrepancy to explain.

That's easy to say, isn't it? It clears up your consonant/dissonance in one fell swoop.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's easy to say, isn't it?

It's correct.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It clears up your consonant/dissonance in one fell swoop.

Stop projecting and answer a question for once in your deluded life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

One of the imaginary goofballs reportedly lining up behind peacegirl

TRENDS IN HUMAN THOUGHT
Report: People Who in Many Circles are Very Well Known and Not Easily Impressed Are Backing Up Peacegirl Even as We Speak.

FREETHOUGHT FORUM (Internet News Service) -- People who in many circles are very well known and not easily impressed are backing up peacegirl even as we speak, it was reported Tuesday.

The bombshell revelation was made by peacegirl at the Freethought Forum message board in a pivotal post time-stamped 4:54 p.m.

"I have people backing me up as we speak, and these individuals are not gullible, easily impressed people," peacegirl wrote in the mind-bending post, which sent the senses reeling. "Do you think I'm going to divulge who these people are? No way. I will wait for them to divulge their identify when the time is right. In fact, in many circles they are very well known, so don't be too quick to throw this discovery out now that others are getting involved."

Although peacegirl declined to divulge the identity of these others are now "getting involved," informed sources described them as a diverse lot. They include manufacturers of translucent sex robes, purveyors of spaghetti and meatballs, artificers of sex toys to be used during dinner-table rumpy pumpy provided no little ones are present, and people who wish to practice medicine without earning a medical degree.

"In addition," said E. Mota Khan, a message boat analyst with the RAND Corporation, "peacegirl has evidently lined up an impressive array of knuckleheads, nyuk-nyuks, goofballs, individuals whose dice lack the requisite number of dots and people who are not the sharpest tools in the shed."

"What is especially noteworthy," Khan went on, "is that all these people are Imaginary Friends."

In other news, Maturin is one twisted dude, but his underpants are colored important.

The "rumpy pumpy at the dinner table" is getting old. In fact, you're losing your edge. You had better think of something new, or you're going to be chop liver.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's correct.

Stop projecting and answer a question for once in your deluded life.

I am not projecting. You just don't like my answers. Oh well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

I'm sorry you don't, but I am not invested in convincing you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only time will tell, so I think the prudent thing to do is to reserve your comments until further testing is done, otherwise, you will end up realizing that you prejudged this knowledge as being erroneous, too soon.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Further testing of what? You realize that we've dissected and examined every physical component of the human visual system and actually observed that the structures are afferent, right? In that regard, there's nothing left to test.

You're incorrect, but all you will say is that I'm a fundie. So let's leave this subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yea, laughing at his expense ...

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Given the fact that Lessans is long dead, my laughter couldn't possibly come "at his expense," could it now?

It's even worse because a dead person can't defend himself, therefore these comments are below the belt.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

will eventually blow up in your face (if you're still on this earth when this discovery is brought to light)

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If believing that makes your existence a bit more tolerable, you go right ahead and believe it.

You would say that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but you obviously find greater satisfaction laughing at him than not, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Amen, sista.

Amen!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

one day you will have misgivings, especially when your ignorant comments are going to be online for everyone to muse at.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hey, I'm not the one who said that the speed of light needs to be recalculated or that everything you find on websites is factually accurate because of Internet Checkers.

I corrected that a long time ago. Why are you bringing up long forgotten comments? Don't you have anything else in your grab bag?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are one twisted dude ...

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes, I know, I am awesome.

What delusions of grandeur you have!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I have to laugh at how you have tried to make this book into a comedy.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Trying to make the Sacred Text into a comedy would be like trying to make The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich into a history book.

Then stop trying. People who say one thing and do another are called liars.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The more you do this, the sweeter it will be when this knowledge is confirmed valid. I will get great satisfaction when I see you run with your tail between your legs due to embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Again, whatever gets you through the Dickensian horror of your daily existence.

Yours can't be much better if this is what you're getting your kicks from.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I must have been bored to do this ...

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Bored, obsessed .. six of one, half-dozen of the other.

Obsessed?? Definitely not with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but I will not let Stephen win.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Too late. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Well, it's hitting a glacier, so don't talk too soon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So for those of you who are genuinely interested in this discovery ...

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Why are you laughing? You think everyone is just like you? Well, they're not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the following are the phrases where these words were used

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And now we can add "phrases" to the burgeoning list of words you don't understand

I'm not getting graded by you so who cares what you think?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: mention of gay relationships (I took out the part that people disagreed with. It was unnecessary).

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Seems I was laughing at Lessans unjustly! As LadyShea pointed out in #19183 (), YOU were the author of that hateful, ill-informed homophobic drivel. Makes one wonder just how much (or little) Lessans had to with this abomination.

Oh my goodness, what righteous indignation!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at and calls Lessans' dead mother a sociopathic shitburger because she wanted to show her son that he did not need the medicine the doctor prescribed, although she paid him for his visit.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hey, remember when folks were ripping on that story the first time and you tried to blow it off by suggesting that Lessans might have made the whole thing up? Good times, eh?

And yes, she was indeed a sociopathic shitburger. The world is better place because of her being worm food. Here's hoping she died slowly and painfully. If there is a hell, she is surely in it.

Wow, the hatred doesn't stop, does it? You're in a class by yourself.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh, and that's a lovely justification defense, by the way. By that logic, killing a person who serves as her family's sole breadwinner is a "no harm, no foul" situation so long as the killer pays the family a sum equal to the reasonably expected earnings of the victim over her lifetime.

Killing a person who serves as her family's sole breadwinner is "no harm"? What the hell are you talking about Stephen?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: psychological problems that will be eliminated in the new world and allow people to maintain their natural weight (his words: getting rid of fat chicks)

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The passage you quoted wasn't the one I was referring to, but you knew that. You pretended I was referring to a different passage because you're a liar.

That was the only passage I ever considered as to being the one you were referring to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: self-certified medical professionals (but, of course, he fails to understand that responsibility goes up, not down)

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I do laugh, but only because this stuff is very funny.

To you it's funny because you choose to see it that way. That's fine with me.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

"I am qualified to assess the adequacy of my own qualifications because ... stfu I just am."

You missed the point and I'm not explaining it to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: dinner table rumpy-pumpy (there was no mention of rumpy pumpy at the dinner table (David concocted that), and Stephen concocted "translucent fuck garments". Great team.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Hey now! It was Vivisectus who came up with "rumpy-pumpy." Get it right already!

Doesn't surprise me. I take the award back from David and give it to Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Anyhow, in the words of Lessans (or peacegirl -- who really knows?):

And why the assumption about the "little ones"? Why blame them for wanting to watch when "THOU SHALT NOT BLAME"?

Why? I hope you're joking. You don't understand the first thing about this book Stephen. It's really sad.

translucent robes, jackets, etc., which will arouse
their wives to accept this invitation.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Because wearing a translucent fuck robe for to show off one's weh-weh is, like, totally different from saying, "Hey baby, howasbouta blow job?"

What's wrong with that phrase? There will be a lot of dirty talk. You are so lost, I give up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: waking a sleeping child = blaming the child for sleeping,

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Yes, but only because it is very funny.

No it isn't. It's only funny because you want it to be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stephen laughs at: the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness (something he has no understanding of whatsoever)

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

No fair! That passage doesn't contain the germinal world of potential consciousness quote at all!

Are you happy now?

When someone dies it is true that he is gone and will never return
in our lifetime because these relations are also undeniable. I also
know that my father and his father before him are derived from this
protoplasmic substance that never dies and is handed along from
generation to generation. It is very true that we have grown to love
our fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, but
their time of death and our relationship to them does not change
reality. If my father had died during his uterine journey this does not
mean that I would never have been born because the word ‘I’ is a
symbol of any individual that is derived from this germinal world of
potential consciousness, and is given to us upon being born.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And where's the part about how the Holocaust was bad and all but really no biggie since it was necessary for God to prepare the world for the Golden Age? Was that stuff yours too? (Never mind. Don't bother answering. You are bereft of credibility.)

Who said that the Holocaust was no biggie? Just because man's will is not free does not mean that these actions are condoned. They are prevented. You don't get it and you don't want to get it. You have put things in your head that make no sense. You have one huge chip on your shoulders, and there's nothing that I can do to change it.

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this
discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation]. When first
hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million
Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing appeared more
ridiculous than such a statement.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What about adult fairies? Where do you think they come from Mister Smarty McSmarty-Pants. The existence of adult fairies is compelling evidence for the existence of baby fairies, so take your condescending sarcasm and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Yes but Adult Fairies are usually only seen where polite people don't go.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You

The "rumpy pumpy at the dinner table" is getting old. In fact, you're losing your edge. You had better think of something new, or you're going to be chop liver.

You may, for the first time, be right about something. "Rumpy pumpy" is getting a bit boring.

However!

Vivisectus, who originated "rumpy pumpy," has since come up with a new word picture: Parking the pink Cadillac in the garage of love.

Would that be better?