A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not going to start up all over again. I am going to skip over the posts that have one motive, and that is to get me; to convince people I am wrong, and to make comments that are mean and vindictive just so they can get people to doubt anything I say. Enough is enough Vivisectus. Just know that if you are not respectful and don't have a relevant question, we will not be talking anymore.

That's entirely up to you, just like it is entirely my choice to point out how that was a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is behaviour we have all seen you display on numerous occasions, and almost all of us have pointed out your dodging, waffling, focussing on irrelevant details to distract attention from questions you just did not have an answer to, and so forth and so on. You are quite famous for it. So it is a bit silly for you to accuse another person of it: it makes you look like a hypocrite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I tell the truth as I perceive it, which is all any human can do. I am not a liar. I have evidence that you are liar, can you not provide evidence that I am? Like what am I "omitting"?

Your evidence that I am a liar is bullshit, and I will not accept your accusations LadyShea. You come off as a imposter as far as I'm concerned, because your analysis of me is off.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet you continue to visit . Persecution complex much?

Nah ahh LadyShea. You're not going to get away with your pet answers. They don't work anymore. Yes I do visit FF because I have spent so much time here, and I will not do it again thanks to this forum. I will also defend myself if I see people defile this thread by adding nasty comments even after I leave. You made me realize that I'm barking up the wrong tree. I will now go directly to philosophers who will talk to me one on one, not a bunch of bullies who will try to make me look like someone I don't even recognize. It's amazing how people can do this and make it look real.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nah ahh LadyShea. You're not going to get away with your pet answers. They don't work anymore. Yes I do visit FF because I have spent so much time here, and I will not do it again thanks to this forum. You made me realize that I'm barking up the wrong tree. I will now go directly to philosophers who will talk to me one on one, not a bunch of bullies who will try to make me look like someone I don't even recognize. It's amazing how people can do this and make it look real.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you approach these philosophers. When they explain why Lessans' ideas are a modal fallacy, what are you going to say to them?

Sam Harris can be found in all sorts of social media (like Twitter). He already is inclined to believe we don't have free will (he wrote a short book on the subject - I found it in the library). He even has some unorthodox views for a nominal skeptic, like his advocacy of meditation.

I think you should approach him with Lessans' ideas and see how far you get.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's entirely up to you, just like it is entirely my choice to point out how that was a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is behaviour we have all seen you display on numerous occasions, and almost all of us have pointed out your dodging, waffling, focussing on irrelevant details to distract attention from questions you just did not have an answer to, and so forth and so on. You are quite famous for it. So it is a bit silly for you to accuse another person of it: it makes you look like a hypocrite.

The problem here is that according to my understanding of the word 'Hypocrite' Peacegirl would need to believe one thing and say something different.

hypocrite [ˈhɪpəkrɪt]
n a person who pretends to be what he is not

I would guess that in her condition Peacegirl believes what she is posting as she is posting it, even if 2 minutes later she is posting something that contradicts her previous statement. She has demonstrated her inability to retain ideas from one minute to the next, and her misunderstanding of most of the relivant concepts relating to the book. She has most definately demonstrated her unwavering faith that Daddy knows best, and is never wrong, so in her twisted reasoning whatever she is posting is in support of her daddys work. She steadfastly believes that what she is posting is correct, even though she is completly bonkers, so she would technically not be a hypocrite, nor would she appear to be one.

[Vivisectus]

Here you go:

AskPhilosophers.org

Do let us know how you get on!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you approach these philosophers. When they explain why Lessans' ideas are a modal fallacy, what are you going to say to them?

Sam Harris can be found in all sorts of social media (like Twitter). He already is inclined to believe we don't have free will (he wrote a short book on the subject - I found it in the library). He even has some unorthodox views for a nominal skeptic, like his advocacy of meditation.

I think you should approach him with Lessans' ideas and see how far you get.

I will try to contact him, as well as others, who I think will understand the book and want to pass it on, but it's not as easy as calling someone on the phone, or emailing them. I don't think many well-known speakers accept personal correspondence. They're too busy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Here you go:

AskPhilosophers.org

Do let us know how you get on!

Thanks for the link, but I'm not posing any questions Vivisectus. I may write to some philosophers if they are interested in determinism and have an email address. I can then give them the link to my website. That way, they can read what's there and if they are interested, they can buy the audio and ebook. If they don't desire this, then any conversation we have will be meaningless, just like it's been in here.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will try to contact him, as well as others, who I think will understand the book and want to pass it on, but it's not as easy as calling someone on the phone, or emailing them. I don't think many well-known speakers accept personal correspondence. They're too busy.

You can send them an email or call them, or, like I said, tweet at them. Now that you have your site, you can even send them a link. You are correct that it's highly unlikely that anyone will bother to follow up, and most will probably ignore you as they do the multitude of crackpots that contact them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's entirely up to you, just like it is entirely my choice to point out how that was a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is behaviour we have all seen you display on numerous occasions, and almost all of us have pointed out your dodging, waffling, focussing on irrelevant details to distract attention from questions you just did not have an answer to, and so forth and so on. You are quite famous for it. So it is a bit silly for you to accuse another person of it: it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I have answered your questions Vivisectus, but you don't grasp the discovery. You tried in the beginning to read a little, but you stopped short. You said to me that a free will environment has nothing to do with being able to shift responsibility, just like firemen are not the cause of fires. I am not a hypocrite. It's so easy to corner someone and make it appear as if he's guilty of that which he is accused. This happens in court all the time. I cannot win in here. I will continue to be viewed as a fundie, and this will not change until someone you respect changes your perspective.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not posing any questions Vivisectus. I will write to philosophers if they have an email address and give them my website. That way, they can read what's there and if they are interested, they can buy the audio and ebook. If they don't desire this, then any conversation we have will be meaningless, just like it's been in here.

You seem to lack the courage of your convictions madam! What's wrong, afraid that they will say the same thing we have been trying to tell you all along?

You have here entire panel of philosophers at your fingertips. They even have an entire section dedicated to free will. These people are literally there to make philosophic expertise available to the general public. The "scientists who can verify this knowledge" are right there, offering their services for free! You wrote yourself in the intro to the book that the only thing that kept this entire idea from going viral was the fact that your father was never able to reach these scientists!

If you want I can just take some assorted clippings of your posts here and see what they think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You can send them an email or call them, or, like I said, tweet at them. Now that you have your site, you can even send them a link. You are correct that it's highly unlikely that anyone will bother to follow up, and most will probably ignore you as they do the multitude of crackpots that contact them.

I'm just learning how to send links from my site. There's so many different ways to market, it's going to take awhile for me to utilize all the avenues out there. But that's my next step. Once I get started, I won't have time to come here except on occasion, if at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to lack the courage of your convictions madam! What's wrong, afraid that they will say the same thing we have been trying to tell you all along?

You have here entire panel of philosophers at your fingertips. They even have an entire section dedicated to free will. These people are literally there to make philosophic expertise available to the general public. The "scientists who can verify this knowledge" are right there, offering their services for free! You wrote yourself in the intro to the book that the only thing that kept this entire idea from going viral was the fact that your father was never able to reach these scientists!

I realize there are plenty of philosophers out there who would be interested. And I thank you for the link. I will read over the profiles of these individuals, and see if there could be any real interest. In the past, I had no website to show them. Now I do, so they can easily hear the first chapter and decide if they want to hear more.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you want I can just take some assorted clippings of your posts here and see what they think?

Are you crazy Vivisectus? I would never give people the link to this thread. I knew you weren't being sincere.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1087342]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's entirely up to you, just like it is entirely my choice to point out how that was a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is behaviour we have all seen you display on numerous occasions, and almost all of us have pointed out your dodging, waffling, focussing on irrelevant details to distract attention from questions you just did not have an answer to, and so forth and so on. You are quite famous for it. So it is a bit silly for you to accuse another person of it: it makes you look like a hypocrite.

I have answered your questions Vivisectus, but you don't grasp the discovery. You tried in the beginning to read a little, but you stopped short. You said to me that a free will environment has nothing to do with being able to shift responsibility, just like firemen are not the cause of fires. I am not a hypocrite. It's so easy to corner someone and make it appear as if he's guilty of that which he is accused. This happens in court all the time. I cannot win in here. I will continue to be viewed as a fundie, and this will not change until someone you respect changes your perspective.

No, you generally avoided the issue, waffled, or sometimes resorted to plain gibberish. This is because you are unable to accept what is obvious to everyone else: the book is not very good.

And my position will change when you present me with some evidence and an argument that is not constructed out of fallacies.

You said to me that a free will environment has nothing to do with being able to shift responsibility, just like firemen are not the cause of fires.

Strawman: I said that saying blame is what allows us to do harm that is not a retaliation is like saying firemen are what allows fires to occur: just because the two are often seen together does not mean one causes the other. We have no reason to assume that blame is what allows a person to do harm, any more than we have reason to believe that the existence of a fire-fighting service is all that allows people to create situations where fires get dangerously out of control.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize there are plenty of philosophers out there who would be interested. And I thank you for the link. I will read over the profiles of these individuals, and see if there could be any real interest. In the past, I had no website to show them. Now I do, so they can easily hear the first chapter and decide if they want to hear more.

Are you crazy Vivisectus? I would never give people the link to this thread. I knew you weren't being sincere.

Why would I link to this thread? Only a madman would sift through it all. No, I will merely take a short version of your position on free will and present it to them as a question to see what they come up with. You are bound to have written one here somewhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to lack the courage of your convictions madam! What's wrong, afraid that they will say the same thing we have been trying to tell you all along?

That's not the reason. I'm embarrassed for you guys! I really am. The way you have twisted my every word will be obvious to someone who is looking in from the outside.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have here entire panel of philosophers at your fingertips. They even have an entire section dedicated to free will. These people are literally there to make philosophic expertise available to the general public. The "scientists who can verify this knowledge" are right there, offering their services for free! You wrote yourself in the intro to the book that the only thing that kept this entire idea from going viral was the fact that your father was never able to reach these scientists!

If you want I can just take some assorted clippings of your posts here and see what they think?

I just said that I will email the philosophers who are interested in this topic. I'll give them the link to my website. They will come to their own conclusions but it will based on Lessans' words, not yours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why would I link to this thread? Only a madman would sift through it all. No, I will merely take a short version of your position on free will and present it to them as a question to see what they come up with. You are bound to have written one here somewhere.

No, there is enough material on my website to either pique their curiosity or it won't. It's not up to you to put your two cents into it. Seriously, I don't need your help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you generally avoided the issue, waffled, or sometimes resorted to plain gibberish. This is because you are unable to accept what is obvious to everyone else: the book is not very good.

And my position will change when you present me with some evidence and an argument that is not constructed out of fallacies.

Strawman: I said that saying blame is what allows us to do harm that is not a retaliation is like saying firemen are what allows fires to occur: just because the two are often seen together does not mean one causes the other. We have no reason to assume that blame is what allows a person to do harm, any more than we have reason to believe that the existence of a fire-fighting service is all that allows people to create situations where fires get dangerously out of control.

I didn't say blame is a direct cause, but it does allow people to strike a first blow (cause unprovoked harm) if that is their intention because they are able to shift their responsibility due to the very nature of blame itself. Your analogy is flawed.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say blame is a direct cause, but it does allow people to strike a first blow (cause unprovoked harm) if that is their intention because they are able to shift their responsibility due to the very nature of blame itself. Your analogy is flawed.

You claim blame is what makes it possible to strike a first blow, and I say that is like saying that is like saying firemen make fires possible. The two may be seen together a lot, but that is not because one is needed for the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You claim blame is what makes it possible to strike a first blow, and I say that is like saying that is like saying firemen make fires possible. The two may be seen together a lot, but that is not because one is needed for the other.

But it isn't. That's why your analogy doesn't work. Firemen don't make it possible for fires to start either. Paradoxically, knowing one will be blamed and punished is an opening to do the very thing these threats are trying to prevent. This doesn't always occur, but it is a factor. A criminal who wants to partake in a crime knows that he will be punished by the authorities. The knowledge that there will be serious consequences if he gets caught gives him the very justification he needs to go ahead with the crime because can always pay a price.

[naturalist.atheist]

Poor peacegirl. This would have been odd or funny 15, 000 posts and two visits ago. Now it's just so sad. Please get help.

[Vivisectus]

But it isn't. That's why your analogy doesn't work. Firemen don't make it possible for fires to start either. Paradoxically, knowing one will be blamed and punished is an opening to do the very thing these threats are trying to prevent. This doesn't always occur, but it is a factor. A criminal who wants to partake in a crime knows that he will be punished by the authorities. The knowledge that there will be serious consequences if he gets caught gives him the very justification he needs to go ahead with the crime because can always pay a price.

I know you believe that. It is just that that belief is based on your belief in your fathers authority, and nothing else. That is the problem. None of us share that belief because all we see is the self-satisfied buffoon that comes out in the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will try to contact him, as well as others, who I think will understand the book and want to pass it on, but it's not as easy as calling someone on the phone, or emailing them. I don't think many well-known speakers accept personal correspondence. They're too busy.

As I told you previously, many well known people are happy to receive and respond to emails, Tweets, etc. So yes, it is just as easy as emailing someone. You may not get responded to, but that shouldn't stop you from trying.

BTW, what is the status of the academic you discussed who was interested?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

BTW, what is the status of the academic you discussed who was interested?

Presumably still fictional.