A revolution in thought - Page 793

Spacemonkey · #**19801** 09-29-2012, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I do visit FF because I have spent so much time here, and I will not do it again thanks to this forum.

That's what you said at your last forum. And the one before that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously, I don't need your help.

I agree. You need professional psychological help.

Spacemonkey · #**19802** 09-29-2012, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was responding to your words.

No, you weren't. You misformatted your post and left my words as your own. You didn't actually type any reply to my words at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said it's consistent only if you think in terms of being able to do what we want to do, or make choices. This is considered free will, but only superficially. Lessans uses this phase throughout the book, "I did it of my own free will", but that does not mean my will is free in a deeper sense.

Once gain: Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I called you on the fact that according to Lessans' proposition, just because we can choose does not mean we have libertarian or contra-causal free will.

I've never claimed otherwise, so how is this calling me on my alleged crap?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, just because we are not being constrained and have the ability or agency to choose what we want to do (which is the standard definition of freedom of the will) does not mean our will is free. This is where there is great confusion in the philosophical world.

The only confusion is in your head. The ability to choose and act in accordance with our choices may not be enough for contra-causal free will (which Lessans' pointless redefinition of determinism still doesn't rule out), but it is enough for compatibilist free will. Therefore Lessans' redefinition does not rule out all forms of free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's getting harder and harder for me to tolerate your attitude toward me. You are very disrespectful and it is starting to really bother me. If you don't think it's relevant, then keep talking to me with this blatant disregard for me as a human being (just because my thoughts don't jive with yours), and our conversation will be over. So it's up to you whether what I say matters or is relevant.

If someone's attitude needs to change, it is yours. When I provide a detailed explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions, merely telling me to change my attitude is obviously not a relevant response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't understand the implications of determinism at all, and you can't follow the simple logic that follows from this understanding. If you can't even understand that this observation is not a tautology, it is no wonder you think that one can still be blameworthy.

You don't have the faintest idea what you're even talking about. It is a trivial tautology that one always does what one considers most preferable out of one's available alternatives. One can still be blameworthy for choosing a morally sub-optimal option that they should not have preferred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no presuppositions. There were no assumptions before he made this discovery. The truth about our conscience is proven after the fact, not before.

Whether you are personally prepared to call them presuppositions is irrelevant. Where did he support those points which I have listed as presuppositions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your presentation you are saying that we can have both free will and no free will. That's a false dichotomy because we cannot have both.

No, I've never said that we can both have and not have free will. And if I had, then that would be a contradiction, not a false dichotomy. Can't you get anything right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said his discovery can't be questioned, but not challenged with the kind of resentment that will never allow you to grasp these concepts. NEVER! That's the problem. You are so convinced that he could not have a discovery (afterall, I'm considered a troll and who in the world would come to a small forum with something of real value) that this is blocking your ability to hear me or take the time to really study this work. And if you dare tell me I'm not sane one more time, I will not engage with you. Even though you have the capacity for understanding this knowledge, it won't be worth it to me to continue our conversation.

Why do you accept and ask us to accept Lessans' allegedly astute observations without a jot of supporting evidence, and yet reject our astute observations as worthless without a moment's thought? Also, why are you still posting here? Have you worked that one out yet?

Angakuk · #**19803** 09-29-2012, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me where I have lied. And it never occurred to me to join your forum.

Quote:

You bring up things that have no relevance at all to what the main topic is about.

They are relevant to me, but even if irrelevant, they are not lies.

Quote:

You skirt issues, you hide behind your sleazy way of trying to distract from the main topic; you focus on the minutia to try (like a prosecutor does) to make people question my credibility as a representative of this knowledge.

I do not skirt issues. Regardless, if you think I do, and think I am sleazy or whatever, this is still not evidence of me lying.

Quote:

The sad part in all this is that discovery is genuine, and one day it will be recognized for the contribution to humanity that it is deserving of. I never said that empirical testing is not a good way to prove that what he has is valid, but the way all of you put me down, laugh in my face, make jokes at my expense, call me names, will one day come back to haunt you.

Still not evidence of me telling lies. Yet you called me a liar.

To me, you are a liar, okay? You lie in your omission. You don't tell the honest truth because you don't know the honest truth. This has become a game to you to see who is the winner. I am not into games. You obviously are positive he is wrong and are calling, without true justification, his knowledge as mere assertions. Believe what you want, but there is no reason for us to continue the conversation. I am eliminating everyone who will confront me with a confidence that is unwarranted. I am starting to market and if I answer any posts at all, they will be relevant. Yours is not.

If LS doesn't tell the honest truth because she doesn't know the honest truth that is evidence of ignorance not evidence of lying.

Lying is apparantly another one of those words the meaning of which you don't understand.

Angakuk · #**19804** 09-29-2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

because it mathematically identifies who must yield IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It is a guiding principle that comes from the knowledge that man's will is not free. As I said before, if you don't like this principle, don't apply it.

Your claim, that the "Right of Way" principle identifies who must yield, introduces an element of necessity. Necessity precludes the exercise of options. If there are no options then there is no need for guidance in the exericise of options. If one must do A then one does not need any guidance with regard to doing A because one is necessarily going to do A with or without such guidance. Likewise, if one must act in accordance with this principle then it is not possible for the principle to not be applied, regardless of whether or not one likes the principle.

In short, if it is the case that the principle of right of way identifies who must yield then it cannot also be the case that the principle of right of way is a guiding principle, because, in the face of such necessity, guidance is both unnecessary and irrelevent.

So, Peacegirl, which is it? Is the principle of right of way a necessary principle (i.e., a law of nature) or a guiding principle (i.e., an ethical principle)? It cannot be both.

bump

Angakuk, I said earlier that just because this is a principle based on a scientific observation, does not mean anyone has to follow it. Even if the principles set forth in the book can lead us to a world of peace and brotherhood, it doesn't mean we have to apply these principles if we don't want to. There is always an option, but once people see that the right-of-way system can only help create harmony in their relationships, it would seem to me that they would desire using it. But again this is entirely up to them. There is no necessity to do anything. There are no injunctions or penalties. In the new world no one is going to tell anyone what to do or how to live.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here. There are obvious times that someone would willingly give up his right-of-way because it gives him greater satisfaction to do so, and in many cases his desire not to do something for someone will be trumped by his desire to do something for someone because, in his eyes, that person's desire takes precedence. This only comes into play when two competing desires are in direct conflict. For a person to blame the other for not wanting to sacrifice his desire, is selfishness, especially when it's the kind of request that the other person can do for himself.

If we don't have to apply this principle and there is no element of necessity, how do you account for your use of the term must in the passage quoted at the top of this post?

If someone wants to use the right-of-way system, they need to know whose desire must yield when there are conflicting desires. If they don't want to follow these principles, they don't have to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are saying that the right-of-way system is the voluntary application of a principle that governs the behavior of those who choose to adopt that system. If that is the case then you are talking about an ethical principle. Something I believe you have previously denied.

I am not denying that this principle has to do with right and wrong, but it is not the kind of principle that deals with right and wrong in terms of what we usually think of when we think of ethical situations such as murder and war. Nevertheless, there is an underlying principle that allows us to know who has the right-of-way in situations that are cloudy. Again, this does not mean that someone who has the right-of-way will consider his desire more important than others. I hope you're not confused by this, but it seems that everyone is trying to take this out of context and make it into something that it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, there can be no must involved if the application of the principle is voluntary. It then becomes a matter of should, something you have also previously denied.

No, this is not about shoulds at all. It's about what is best for ourselves, and once we know that doing certain things are for our benefit, we will do them because we believe they will make our life better. We don't need someone to tell us we should do this because it is the right thing to do.

I never said anything about someone else telling us what we should do. External authority is not at issue here. If I choose to do that which I believe will make my life better because I believe that is right thing to do, then it is the case that I believe I should do that which I believe will make my life better. If, on the other hand, I do that which I believe will make someone else's life better, even at the risk of diminishing my own well-being (altruism), because I believe that is the right thing to do, then it is the case that I believe I should do that which will make someone else's life better even though it diminishes my own well-being. In neither case is there any reference to an outside authority telling me what I should do. The shoulds/oughts in this case are internally generated and there are no musts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I sit down to a game of cards. The game has certain rules and by agreeing to play the game we both agree to abide by those rules. In other words, we both agree to voluntarily apply the principles that govern the game. Suppose then that one of us decides to gain an unfair advantage by palming a key card, or substituting a marked deck (this is called cheating). By your reasoning this would not be possible because, having agreed to abide by the rules of the game, both of us must fairly and consistently apply the principles that govern the game. Cheating is however quite possible, therefore there is no must.

Cheating is always possible, but you need to understand why cheating would never be an option in the direction of greater satisfaction, once people become citizens.

And you need to demonstrate that such is the case, rather than simply asserting that it is so. You cannot legitimately argue the truth of a claim by appealing to the supposed future existence of conditions which may, if they actually occur at some future date, substantiate the truth of said claim.

peacegirl · #**19805** 09-29-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was responding to your words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you weren't. You misformatted your post and left my words as your own. You didn't actually type any reply to my words at all.

So give me your words again, and I'll reply. It's as simple as that. You don't have to make a whole spiel because I made a mistake in formatting. Do you know how many questions I've answered in this thread? I'm bound to make a few mistakes. This has become a smear campaign. That's all it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said it's consistent only if you think in terms of being able to do what we want to do, or make choices. This is considered free will, but only superficially. Lessans uses this phase throughout the book, "I did it of my own free will", but that does not mean my will is free in a deeper sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Once gain: Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

There is no free will if you're using Lessans' redefinition. Just because there is nothing that can cause (or force) someone to do anything against his will, DOES NOT MAKE HIS WILL FREE. Your assertions don't mean anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I called you on the fact that according to Lessans' proposition, just because we can choose does not mean we have libertarian or contra-causal free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've never claimed otherwise, so how is this calling me on my alleged crap?

You just said that Lessans' redefinition neither rules out compatibilist free will, and doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will, so you did claim otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, just because we are not being constrained and have the ability or agency to choose what we want to do (which is the standard definition of freedom of the will) does not mean our will is free. This is where there is great confusion in the philosophical world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The only confusion is in your head. The ability to choose and act in accordance with our choices may not be enough for contra-causal free will (which Lessans' pointless redefinition of determinism still doesn't rule out), but it is enough for compatibilist free will. Therefore Lessans' redefinition does not rule out all forms of free will.

No, there is no free will. You don't even understand his proposition, so you are not in the position to refute it. His definition is extremely important. You can't admit that you are the one confused. Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's getting harder and harder for me to tolerate your attitude toward me. You are very disrespectful and it is starting to really bother me. If you don't think it's relevant, then keep talking to me with this blatant disregard for me as a human being (just because my thoughts don't jive with yours), and our conversation will be over. So it's up to you whether what I say matters or is relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If someone's attitude needs to change, it is yours. When I provide a detailed explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions, merely telling me to change my attitude is obviously not a relevant response.

It was not in reference to your detailed explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions. The relevance was in terms of whether you want to continue to engage with me because I'm giving you an ultimatum. It had nothing to do with that post, even though I interjected my comment there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't understand the implications of determinism at all, and you can't follow the simple logic that follows from this understanding. If you can't even understand that this observation is not a tautology, it is no wonder you think that one can still be blameworthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have the faintest idea what you're even talking about. It is a trivial tautology that one always does what one considers most preferable out of one's available alternatives. One can still be blameworthy for choosing a morally sub-optimal option that they should not have preferred.

It is not a trivial tautology at all. You obviously don't understand where his observations came from. You have no clue what the two-sided equation is, so your answer to me that you can still be blameworthy means nothing. You don't understand that there can be no morally sub-optimal options, which only means there can be no purposeful desire to hurt others as the preferable choice under the changed conditions. You don't even know what those conditions are, and you think you are answering in an intelligent way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had no presuppositions. There were no assumptions before he made this discovery. The truth about our conscience is proven after the fact, not before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Whether you are personally prepared to call them presuppositions is irrelevant. Where did he support those points which I have listed as presuppositions?

They are supported once it is realized that these two principles that lead to the two-sided equation are impeccable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In your presentation you are saying that we can have both free will and no free will. That's a false dichotomy because we cannot have both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I've never said that we can both have and not have free will. And if I had, then that would be a contradiction, not a false dichotomy. Can't you get anything right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said his discovery can't be questioned, but not challenged with the kind of resentment that will never allow you to grasp these concepts. NEVER! That's the problem. You are so convinced that he could not have a discovery (afterall, I'm considered a troll and who in the world would come to a small forum with something of real value) that this is blocking your ability to hear me or take the time to really study this work. And if you dare tell me I'm not sane one more time, I will not engage with you. Even though you have the capacity for understanding this knowledge, it won't be worth it to me to continue our conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you accept and ask us to accept Lessans' allegedly astute observations without a jot of supporting evidence, and yet reject our astute observations as worthless without a moment's thought? Also, why are you still posting here? Have you worked that one out yet?

I have listened to your observations and they don't add up. You will only be happy if I say you're right, but you're not. What can I say? And don't put words in my mouth. I never said your ideas are worthless. They just aren't accurate.

peacegirl · #**19806** 09-29-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me where I have lied. And it never occurred to me to join your forum.

Quote:

You bring up things that have no relevance at all to what the main topic is about.

They are relevant to me, but even if irrelevant, they are not lies.

Quote:

You skirt issues, you hide behind your sleazy way of trying to distract from the main topic; you focus on the minutia to try (like a prosecutor does) to make people question my credibility as a representative of this knowledge.

I do not skirt issues. Regardless, if you think I do, and think I am sleazy or whatever, this is still not evidence of me lying.

Quote:

The sad part in all this is that discovery is genuine, and one day it will be recognized for the contribution to humanity that it is deserving of. I never said that empirical testing is not a good way to prove that what he has is valid, but the way all of you put me down, laugh in my face, make jokes at my expense, call me names, will one day come back to haunt you.

Still not evidence of me telling lies. Yet you called me a liar.

To me, you are a liar, okay? You lie in your omission. You don't tell the honest truth because you don't know the honest truth. This has become a game to you to see who is the winner. I am not into games. You obviously are positive he is wrong and are calling, without true justification, his knowledge as mere assertions. Believe what you want, but there is no reason for us to continue the conversation. I am eliminating everyone who will confront me with a confidence that is unwarranted. I am starting to market and if I answer any posts at all, they will be relevant. Yours is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If LS doesn't tell the honest truth because she doesn't know the honest truth that is evidence of ignorance not evidence of lying.

Lying is apparantly another one of those words the meaning of which you don't understand.

I know exactly what lying means, and I have been accused many times, yet I am innocent. You are protecting LadyShea, because now she is the victim. Poor LadyShea, after what she's done to my reputation? Let's face it Angakuk, this is a brotherhood where no one ever goes against the other even in a simple conversation, or you are risking serious censure. After all, you would be breaking the unspoken rules of a forum that is supposed to be free. This is not free speech at all. It's mission statement is cloaked that way, but in reality it is anything but.

LadyShea · #**19807** 09-29-2012, 02:52 PM

Anyone who reads this thread is able to look at both of our posts and decide for themselves who has made the best points or who has best supported their points. Your ability to freely respond to everything said means your refutations are also available to readers to analyze and reach their own conclusions.

Do you assume everyone who might read this is really stupid and can't decide for themselves which posts and arguments are most convincing? If so, why are you here?

So, how exactly can I have any effect on your reputation?

LadyShea · #**19808** 09-29-2012, 02:53 PM

Duplicate

LadyShea · #**19809** 09-29-2012, 03:01 PM

So, were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it was 3. shown to cause cancer? No, you were not. That is not the truth, correct? Was it a mistake? If so, admit it was a mistake.

Were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it 3. caused liver problems, and additionally 4. these liver problems were not listed on the label? You claim this is so, but have not verified it. Guess how many drugs meet those 4 criteria (hint: none)?

So either you made up the whole anecdote, which makes you a liar, or you have a terribly unreliable memory, and either way any personal experiences you relay are highly likely to be bullshit. If you can't even tell a simple, personal experience (one that you found important) accurately, why should anything you say be trusted?

peacegirl · #**19810** 09-29-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

because it mathematically identifies who must yield IF THERE IS A CONFLICT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It is a guiding principle that comes from the knowledge that man's will is not free. As I said before, if you don't like this principle, don't apply it.

Your claim, that the "Right of Way" principle identifies who must yield, introduces an element of necessity. Necessity precludes the exercise of options. If there are no options then there is no need for guidance in the exericise of options. If one must do A then one does not need any guidance with regard to doing A because one is necessarily going to do A with or without such guidance. Likewise, if one must act in accordance with this principle then it is not possible for the principle to not be applied, regardless of whether or not one likes the principle.

In short, if it is the case that the principle of right of way identifies who must yield then it cannot also be the case that the principle of right of way is a guiding principle, because, in the face of such necessity, guidance is both unnecessary and irrelevent.

So, Peacegirl, which is it? Is the principle of right of way a necessary principle (i.e., a law of nature) or a guiding principle (i.e., an ethical principle)? It cannot be both.

bump

Quote:

Angakuk, I said earlier that just because this is a principle based on a scientific observation, does not mean anyone has to follow it. Even if the principles set forth in the book can lead us to a world of peace and brotherhood, it doesn't mean we have to apply these principles if we don't want to. There is always an option, but once people see that the right-of-way system can only help create harmony in their relationships, it would seem to me that they would desire using it. But again this is entirely up to them. There is no necessity to do anything. There are no injunctions or penalties. In the new world no one is going to tell anyone what to do or how to live.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here. There are obvious times that someone would willingly give up his right-of-way because it gives him greater satisfaction to do so, and in many cases his desire not to do something for someone will be trumped by his desire to do something for someone because, in his eyes, that person's desire takes precedence. This only comes into play when two competing desires are in direct conflict. For a person to blame the other for not wanting to sacrifice his desire, is selfishness, especially when it's the kind of request that the other person can do for himself.

If we don't have to apply this principle and there is no element of necessity, how do you account for your use of the term must in the passage quoted at the top of this post?

If someone wants to use the right-of-way system, they need to know whose desire must yield when there are conflicting desires. If they don't want to follow these principles, they don't have to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are saying that the right-of-way system is the voluntary application of a principle that governs the behavior of those who choose to adopt that system. If that is the case then you are talking about an ethical principle. Something I believe you have previously denied.

Quote:

I am not denying that this principle has to do with right and wrong, but it is not the kind of principle that deals with right and wrong in terms of what we usually think of when we think of ethical situations such as murder and war. Nevertheless, there is an underlying principle that allows us to know who has the right-of-way in situations that are cloudy. Again, this does not mean that someone who has the right-of-way will consider his desire more important than others. I hope you're not confused by this, but it seems that everyone is trying to take this out of context and make it into something that it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In any case, there can be no must involved if the application of the principle is voluntary. It then becomes a matter of should, something you have also previously denied.

Quote:

No, this is not about shoulds at all. It's about what is best for ourselves, and once we know that doing certain things are for our benefit, we will do them because we believe they will make our life better. We don't need someone to tell us we should do this because it is the right thing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I never said anything about someone else telling us what we should do. External authority is not at issue here. If I choose to do that which I believe will make my life better because I believe that is right thing to do, then it is the case that I believe I should do that which I believe will make my life better. If, on the other hand, I do that which I believe will make someone else's life better, even at the risk of diminishing my own well-being (altruism), because I believe that is the right thing to do, then it is the case that I believe I should do that which will make someone else's life better even though it diminishes my own well-being. In neither case is there any reference to an outside authority telling me what I should do. The shoulds/oughts in this case are internally generated and there are no musts.

We're splitting hairs here. Should and must are similar terms. Yes, it's an internal decision, and yes, it's also true that one can get greater satisfaction from helping someone else even at the sacrifice of his own well-being. I've explained that this principle of "greater satisfaction" does not mean that we only derive satisfaction from putting ourselves first. This is obviously not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I sit down to a game of cards. The game has certain rules and by agreeing to play the game we both agree to abide by those rules. In other words, we both agree to voluntarily apply the principles that govern the game. Suppose then that one of us decides to gain an unfair advantage by palming a key card, or substituting a marked deck (this is called cheating). By your reasoning this would not be possible because, having agreed to abide by the rules of the game, both of us must fairly and consistently apply the principles that govern the game. Cheating is however quite possible, therefore there is no must.

Cheating is always possible, but you need to understand why cheating would never be an option in the direction of greater satisfaction, once people become citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And you need to demonstrate that such is the case, rather than simply asserting that it is so. You cannot legitimately argue the truth of a claim by appealing to the supposed future existence of conditions which may, if they actually occur at some future date, substantiate the truth of said claim.

If you carefully studied the principles in this book, you would see why there will be no need to cheat. People cheat because they feel that cheating will benefit them in some way. Yes, I can appeal to the claim of a supposed future existence of conditions to substantiate the truth of said claim if that claim is based on an accurate set of premises. For example, I can predict that I will get to a certain destination (barring any unforeseen delays) if my calculation based on distance and speed are accurate, even though I have not actually arrived yet.

peacegirl · #**19811** 09-29-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it was 3. shown to cause cancer? No, you were not. That is not the truth, correct? Was it a mistake? If so, admit it was a mistake.

You are so anal, it's to your detriment LadyShea. You accused me of intentionally lying. That's the issue here. I admitted it was a mistake. After thinking carefully I recall that it was a liver problem. Part of the reason for my mistake has been to due to my being in the hot seat all the time, and being called on things that are completely unrelated to the topic just to give you an unfair advantage and cause people to have doubt about who I am as a person. I know that this drug is considered a problem. Now thinking back, I recall that I got off of it before I even heard the announcement on television. Does that make me a liar? No, it doesn't. I had been brought up to be very cautious about drugs in general, which is why my instinct that this drug might not be safe caused me to think twice, even thought it was prescribed by a doctor. This cautiousness has been to my advantage. I am grateful I did not go on this drug, and I have my father to thank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it 3. caused liver problems, and additionally 4. these liver problems were not listed on the label? You claim this is so, but have not verified it. Guess how many drugs meet those 4 criteria (hint: none)?

I don't remember if liver damage was listed on the insert. I needed help so I took it based on a doctor's recommendation, but my fear of side effects kicked in and I stopped taking it after I didn't like the way I felt. Oftentimes there are no contraindications listed because they aren't known yet. Many times new contraindications are put on the label after enough people have been injured or died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So either you made up the whole anecdote, which makes you a liar, or you have a terribly unreliable memory, and either way any personal experiences you relay are highly likely to be bullshit. If you can't even tell a simple, personal experience (one that you found important) accurately, why should anything you say be trusted?

I don't care what you think. I am tired of you calling me a liar. You're trying to pin something on me to make it appear that I am not to be trusted. You're the one that is not credible because you use underhanded tactics to try to make something what it is not.

peacegirl · #**19812** 09-29-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyone who reads this thread is able to look at both of our posts and decide for themselves who has made the best points or who has best supported their points. Your ability to freely respond to everything said means your refutations are also available to readers to analyze and reach their own conclusions.

Do you assume everyone who might read this is really stupid and can't decide for themselves which posts and arguments are most convincing? If so, why are you here?

So, how exactly can I have any effect on your reputation?

It's not just you LadyShea. It's the group. It all began with the anger related to his claim about the eyes. There has been refutation after refutation without any clear proof that Lessans is wrong. And because of the growing resentment in here, all I've gotten are horrible attacks on me and on Lessans, who is not here to defend himself. These responses are kneejerk because they hit a nerve. I never imagined that this kind of response would take place. I have never encountered such vitriol in my entire online experience. I have learned the hard way that forums are not the right venue. I realize that now.

davidm · #**19813** 09-29-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... even if I won the Nobel Prize ...

Peacegirl will receive a gold medallion embossed with the above image.

Peacegirl Awarded Prestigious Nobel Asshat Prize

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service – Peacegirl has been awarded the Novel Prize for Asshattery, it was announced Saturday.

The prize is awarded annually to the person who most successfully wears his or her own ass as a hat.

Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, lauded the choice, saying, “peacegirl has shoved her head so far up her ass that it has passed all the way through her digestive tract, up her esophagus and back through her neck hole, causing her head to resume its former place after having passed through her ass. No one has ever seen this before. It was not even thought to be anatomically possible, but somehow she did it.”

Broadly, successful asshats exemplify a combination of brazen dishonesty and willful ignorance that is due to the fact that their heads are located in their rectums, interfering with the brain’s capacity to process information since the head is covered in shit.

Lundestad said that committee members were especially impressed with peacegirl’s brazen lying and willful ignorance on the subject of light and sight. Contending that we see objects in real time with no delay due to the speed of light, peacegirl has been presented with literally dozens of iron-clad refutations of this idiotic claim, and has failed to answer any of them.

“It has been repeatedly shown to her, for instance, that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations,” Lundestad said, “and that if we saw in real time as she claims, then every single one of these spacecraft would fail to hit their targets. This by itself is a clear disproof of her claim, and there have many, many others. When repeatedly presented with these clear disproofs of her jejune idiocy, she brazenly ignores them and then later whines that no one has shown her why the claim is wrong.”

Lundestad added, “The chutzpah of this simpering little fool is simply breathtaking. That’s why she’s our proud choice for the Nobel Asshat Prize.”

peacegirl · #**19814** 09-29-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... even if I won the Nobel Prize ...

Peacegirl will receive a gold medallion embossed with the above image.

Peacegirl Awarded Prestigious Nobel Asshat Prize

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service – Peacegirl has been awarded the Novel Prize for Asshattery, it was announced Saturday.

The prize is awarded annually to the person who most successfully wears his or her own ass as a hat.

Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, lauded the choice, saying, “peacegirl has shoved her head so far up her ass that it has passed all the way through her digestive tract, up her esophagus and back through her neck hole, causing her head to resume its former place after having passed through her ass. No one has ever seen this before. It was not even thought to be anatomically possible, but somehow she did it.”

Broadly, successful asshats exemplify a combination of brazen dishonesty and willful ignorance that is due to the fact that their heads are located in their rectums, interfering with the brain’s capacity to process information since the head is covered in shit.

Lundestad said that committee members were especially impressed with peacegirl’s brazen lying and willful ignorance on the subject of light and sight. Contending that we see objects in real time with no delay due to the speed of light, peacegirl has been presented with literally dozens of iron-clad refutations of this idiotic claim, and has failed to answer any of them.

“It has been repeatedly shown to her, for instance, that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations,” Lundestad said, “and that if we saw in real time as she claims, then every single one of these spacecraft would fail to hit their targets. This by itself is a clear disproof of her claim, and there have many, many others. When repeatedly presented with these clear disproofs of her jejune idiocy, she brazenly ignores them and then later whines that no one has shown her why the claim is wrong.”

Lundestad added, “The chutzpah of this simpering little fool is simply breathtaking. That’s why she’s our proud choice for the Nobel Asshat Prize.”

That was simply hilarious! The best one yet!!! :giggle:

naturalist.atheist · #**19815** 09-29-2012, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have learned the hard way that forums are not the right venue. I realize that now.

If only you were capable of learning. You'll be back.

LadyShea · #**19816** 09-29-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it was 3. shown to cause cancer? No, you were not. That is not the truth, correct? Was it a mistake? If so, admit it was a mistake.

You are so anal, it's to your detriment LadyShea.

And you are so full of shit you have no credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You accused me of intentionally lying. That's the issue here. I admitted it was a mistake. After thinking carefully I recall that it was a liver problem.

Liar. You only said liver problems because I called bullshit on your claims that it caused cancer, and then thedoc mentioned drugs that cause liver problems, so you glommed on to that thinking it would be easier to support (or harder for me to refute).

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Part of the reason for my mistake has been to due to my being in the hot seat all the time, and being called on things that are completely unrelated to the topic just to give you an unfair advantage and cause people to have doubt about who I am as a person. .

Boohoo, hotseat. You choose to be here. Take the heat or GTFO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that this drug is considered a problem

How do you know that if you don't even know what drug it is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it 3. caused liver problems, and additionally 4. these liver problems were not listed on the label? You claim this is so, but have not verified it. Guess how many drugs meet those 4 criteria (hint: none)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't remember if liver damage was listed on the insert.

Just two days ago you insisted that you reliably remembered the label when I pressed you about it, now you are backtracking on that too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 9/27

It wasn't listed. These serious side effects were unknown so how could they be listed?
At the time I read the insert, these side-effects were not even known because the drug was not on the market that long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So either you made up the whole anecdote, which makes you a liar, or you have a terribly unreliable memory, and either way any personal experiences you relay are highly likely to be bullshit. If you can't even tell a simple, personal experience (one that you found important) accurately, why should anything you say be trusted?

I don't care what you think. I am tired of you calling me a liar. You're trying to pin something on me to make it appear that I am not to be trusted. You're the one that is not credible because you use underhanded tactics to try to make something what it is not.

I haven't used any underhanded tactics. I asked you questions about an experience you told us about of your own accord. Asking people to provide specifics and details when they tell dramatic anecdotes is underhanded?

You are totally full of shit.

LadyShea · #**19817** 09-29-2012, 10:35 PM

What do you mean you realize NOW that forums are not the right venue. You said this same thing well over a year ago and multiple times since. You said the same thing at Frost Cloud and other forums too. Did you forget you have realized this many, many times?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl;963393 from July 2011

You're all so sure of yourselves that he is wrong and you are right that there's no point anymore. I've given it my best but I cannot continue to read the horrible comments about him and myself. This mob attack will only continue to get worse. This is not the venue that I can discuss this discovery in any serious way. Once people go on the attack, the tidal wave of resentment, vitriol, and downright hatred doesn't stop until I'm beaten to a pulp. And you actually think this is not group think at its worst? I'm not going to be the butt of your jokes anymore.

LadyShea · #**19818** 09-29-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyone who reads this thread is able to look at both of our posts and decide for themselves who has made the best points or who has best supported their points. Your ability to freely respond to everything said means your refutations are also available to readers to analyze and reach their own conclusions.

Do you assume everyone who might read this is really stupid and can't decide for themselves which posts and arguments are most convincing? If so, why are you here?

So, how exactly can I have any effect on your reputation?

It's not just you LadyShea. It's the group. It all began with the anger related to his claim about the eyes. There has been refutation after refutation without any clear proof that Lessans is wrong. And because of the growing resentment in here, all I've gotten are horrible attacks on me and on Lessans, who is not here to defend himself. These responses are kneejerk because they hit a nerve. I never imagined that this kind of response would take place. I have never encountered such vitriol in my entire online experience. I have learned the hard way that forums are not the right venue. I realize that now.

Kneejerk? You have been offered studies, papers (TLR wrote a paper especially for you that you didn't even bother to read), and detailed information on everything from astronomy to cosmology to rocket science. Those are not kneejerk responses.

A kneejerk reaction would be "nuh uh!" or "is not!" like you do.

And, since you've gotten similar responses at every forum you've been to, and accused every one of being the most nasty and vitriolic you've encountered (you called Frost Cloud "particularly nasty")you imagined it and should have expected it. Every time you've been asked to provide solid evidence or non-fallacious reasoning to support your position and been supplied substantial evidence to support all refutations, and every time you just parrot your bullshit about time will tell and pudding eating and astute observations.

You are a dishonest weasel.

peacegirl · #**19819** 09-29-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it was 3. shown to cause cancer? No, you were not. That is not the truth, correct? Was it a mistake? If so, admit it was a mistake.

You are so anal, it's to your detriment LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you are so full of shit you have no credibility.

That's your aim, don't you see? You are trying so hard to focus on stupid details that you would miss the entire book because I didn't put a comma in the right place. I would never hear the end of it. You can't seem to separate the wheat from the chaff, and know what's important and what is insignificant. Whether I remember the name of the drug that I took, or not, does not make me a liar, and it doesn't detract from the credibility of Lessans' book one iota.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You accused me of intentionally lying. That's the issue here. I admitted it was a mistake. After thinking carefully I recall that it was a liver problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Liar. You only said liver problems because I called bullshit on your claims that it caused cancer, and then thedoc mentioned drugs that cause liver problems, so you glommed on to that thinking it would be easier to support (or harder for me to refute).

You are in a dreamworld girl. How can you, in all seriousness, come off like you know what I'm thinking? You don't know me at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Part of the reason for my mistake has been to due to my being in the hot seat all the time, and being called on things that are completely unrelated to the topic just to give you an unfair advantage and cause people to have doubt about who I am as a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Boohoo, hotseat. You choose to be here. Take the heat or GTFO.

GTFO because of you? No way LadyShea. You don't own this place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that this drug is considered a problem

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know that if you don't even know what drug it is?

I don't remember the name of the drug, but that does not make me a liar LadyShea. It was quite a few years ago. At the time, the drug that was implicated for causing liver damage when I saw that it was mentioned on television. My story is true. I don't know if it was recalled or not, but I am glad I stopped taking it. If it had been a drug that I could not get off of, I would have had to deal with the risks involved. I made an honest error when I said I took something that was associated with cancer not realizing that I was going to be hounded like this, but when push came to shove I thought back and remembered it was not cancer but liver damage. I can see where you could think I was changing my story for dishonest purposes, but that's not what I was doing. Why can't you see my innocence instead of my guilt?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Were you prescribed 1. a drug for pain that was 2. later pulled from the market because it 3. caused liver problems, and additionally 4. these liver problems were not listed on the label? You claim this is so, but have not verified it. Guess how many drugs meet those 4 criteria (hint: none)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't remember if liver damage was listed on the insert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just two days ago you insisted that you reliably remembered the label when I pressed you about it, now you are backtracking on that too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't listed. These serious side effects were unknown so how could they be listed?
At the time I read the insert, these side-effects were not even known because the drug was not on the market that long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So either you made up the whole anecdote, which makes you a liar, or you have a terribly unreliable memory, and either way any personal experiences you relay are highly likely to be bullshit. If you can't even tell a simple, personal experience (one that you found important) accurately, why should anything you say be trusted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't care what you think. I am tired of you calling me a liar. You're trying to pin something on me to make it appear that I am not to be trusted. You're the one that is not credible because you use underhanded tactics to try to make something what it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I haven't used any underhanded tactics. I asked you questions about an experience you told us about of your own accord. Asking people to provide specifics and details when they tell dramatic anecdotes is underhanded?

You are totally full of shit.

No, your interrogation is full of shit. The problem is your intention. You are trying to find anything you can to make me look like I'm untrustworthy. These are the tactics that lawyers use as a strategy to get the jury to doubt the other side. It's that simple. Now go eat crow! :fuming:

Spacemonkey · #**19820** 09-29-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So give me your words again, and I'll reply. It's as simple as that. You don't have to make a whole spiel because I made a mistake in formatting. Do you know how many questions I've answered in this thread? I'm bound to make a few mistakes. This has become a smear campaign. That's all it is.

You made the mistake, I pointed it out, you denied it, then I corrected you. Here is what I said: "It is entirely consistent with contra-causal free will that nothing can cause us to do anything we don't want to do. So how does this rule it out? You really have no conception at all of the meanings of the words you use, do you?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no free will if you're using Lessans' redefinition. Just because there is nothing that can cause (or force) someone to do anything against his will, DOES NOT MAKE HIS WILL FREE. Your assertions don't mean anything.

There is compatibilist free will when we are using Lessans' redefinition of determinism. The ability to make unconstrained choices DOES make our will free in the compatibilist sense of the word. Neither regular determinism nor Lessans' redefinition of it rules out compatibilist free will, and Lessans' version doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just said that Lessans' redefinition neither rules out compatibilist free will, and doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will, so you did claim otherwise.

You just can't get anything right at all, can you? I did say that Lessans' redefinition does not rule out contra-causal free will. This is true. I did not say that the ability to choose means we have libertarian or contra-causal free will. Not ruling something out does not mean that it is ruled in. Something can be neither ruled in nor ruled out, but left underdetermined by a given thesis. The inverse square law of gravity does not rule out my wearing a green T-shirt tomorrow. But that doesn't mean I will wear a green T-shirt tomorrow.

When you continuously make such blatant logical blunders, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say? Why should anyone (including yourself) place any value on your estimation of Lessans' reasoning abilities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is no free will. You don't even understand his proposition, so you are not in the position to refute it. His definition is extremely important. You can't admit that you are the one confused. Why is that?

Because it's just more delusional crap. When faced with refutations you cannot address you just deny that anyone understands the material and insist upon its importance. There is compatibilist free will even under Lessans' redefinition of determinism, and that redefinition doesn't even rule out contra-causal free will. His redefinition is a pointless tautology of no value whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not in reference to your detailed explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions. The relevance was in terms of whether you want to continue to engage with me because I'm giving you an ultimatum. It had nothing to do with that post, even though I interjected my comment there.

You can shove your ultimatum. If you think it is acceptable to respond to a detailed explanation (explaining why there is no need to redefine a thesis just because it is taken to be false) by evading it only to tell me that I need to change my attitude, then you are the one in need of an attitude change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a trivial tautology at all. You obviously don't understand where his observations came from. You have no clue what the two-sided equation is, so your answer to me that you can still be blameworthy means nothing. You don't understand that there can be no morally sub-optimal options, which only means there can be no purposeful desire to hurt others as the preferable choice under the changed conditions.

It's either a trivial tautology (which fails to rule out any kind of free will), or it is an empirical claim yet to be supported by any kind of evidence. YOU don't understand where his observations came from. 'Observation' is just a word you (mis)use to refer to claims from your father that you are unable to support. You know that I do understand the two-sided (non)equation, because I have explained it back to you. And your claim that there could be no purposeful desire to hurt others is just another unsupported assertion based on nothing but your and your father's ridiculous assumptions about conscience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are supported once it is realized that these two principles that lead to the two-sided equation are impeccable.

Bullshit. You don't even understand the logic of your own argument. His two principles do not and cannot support his presuppositions about conscience. Those presuppositions are what is needed in addition to those principles, in order to reach his conclusions. Unless his unsupported assumptions about conscience are correct, his two-sided (non)equation doesn't get you anywhere, no matter how impeccable it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have listened to your observations and they don't add up. You will only be happy if I say you're right, but you're not. What can I say? And don't put words in my mouth. I never said your ideas are worthless. They just aren't accurate.

So then why do you accept and ask us to accept Lessans' allegedly astute observations without a jot of supporting evidence, and yet reject our astute observations as inaccurate without a moment's thought? Also, why are you still posting here? Have you worked that one out yet?

thedoc · #**19821** 09-29-2012, 11:34 PM

Well I must say that ol'e Seymour looks like a scholar perhaps that is part of what fooled him into thinking he had actually discovered something. His voice isn't hard to listen to, and he speaks very carefully so you can make out every word. There is no mistaking what he is saying, unfortunately the words are just what is in the book. There is no mistaking the meaning of what he is trying to say.

peacegirl · #**19822** 09-29-2012, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean you realize NOW that forums are not the right venue. You said this same thing well over a year ago and multiple times since. You said the same thing at Frost Cloud and other forums too. Did you forget you have realized this many, many times?

Actually, I did not say that. I said that forums have different audiences and each forum has their own agendas. Some are objectivists, some are atheists, some are Nietzscheans, some are anarchists, some are nihilists, some are capitalists, and the list goes on. Most of these forums base their thinking on their worldview, so it makes it difficult to come in with a completely different train of thought, and what made it especially the wrong way to present this material was that forums are meant for debate. I wasn't coming to debate, which made people angry. That was my mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl;963393 from July 2011

You're all so sure of yourselves that he is wrong and you are right that there's no point anymore. I've given it my best but I cannot continue to read the horrible comments about him and myself. This mob attack will only continue to get worse. This is not the venue that I can discuss this discovery in any serious way. Once people go on the attack, the tidal wave of resentment, vitriol, and downright hatred doesn't stop until I'm beaten to a pulp. And you actually think this is not group think at its worst? I'm not going to be the butt of your jokes anymore.

That was in this forum, wasn't it? This is the end of the road for me as far as philosophy forums, unless I join just to let people know about my website as a form of advertising. I would never engage in a forum like this again. This forum cured me. :sadcheer:

Spacemonkey · #**19823** 09-29-2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean you realize NOW that forums are not the right venue. You said this same thing well over a year ago and multiple times since. You said the same thing at Frost Cloud and other forums too. Did you forget you have realized this many, many times?

Actually, I did not say that.

Yes you did. You have rediscovered at each forum you've been to that forums are not the right venue. Yet each time you've gone on to post at another one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the end of the road for me as far as philosophy forums, unless I join just to let people know about my website as a form of advertising. I would never engage in a forum like this again. This forum cured me. :sadcheer:

Again, you've said this all before at other past forums. I'm afraid you're still a long way from any kind of cure for your condition. You can't even stop posting here, where you've already convinced everyone that you're nuts.

peacegirl · #**19824** 09-29-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyone who reads this thread is able to look at both of our posts and decide for themselves who has made the best points or who has best supported their points. Your ability to freely respond to everything said means your refutations are also available to readers to analyze and reach their own conclusions.

Do you assume everyone who might read this is really stupid and can't decide for themselves which posts and arguments are most convincing? If so, why are you here?

So, how exactly can I have any effect on your reputation?

It's not just you LadyShea. It's the group. It all began with the anger related to his claim about the eyes. There has been refutation after refutation without any clear proof that Lessans is wrong. And because of the growing resentment in here, all I've gotten are horrible attacks on me and on Lessans, who is not here to defend himself. These responses are kneejerk because they hit a nerve. I never imagined that this kind of response would take place. I have never encountered such vitriol in my entire online experience. I have learned the hard way that forums are not the right venue. I realize that now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Kneejerk? You have been offered studies, papers (TLR wrote a paper especially for you that you didn't even bother to read), and detailed information on everything from astronomy to cosmology to rocket science. Those are not kneejerk responses.

A kneejerk reaction would be "nuh uh!" or "is not!" like you do.

That's not what I mean. It's the anger I see just for not agreeing with all of you regarding the eyes. I listened to everything regarding astronomy, cosmology, and rocket science. None of it has proved conclusively that the eyes are a sense organ. You are entitled to think differently. It's a free country. The knee-jerk reaction has now morphed into such mean vengeful responses. Look at the rather cruel jokes David posts. It will come back to haunt him one day, although I still think his satires are hilarious. I can actually remove myself from taking it personally, and just enjoy his funny side, even though he really wants it to hurt me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, since you've gotten similar responses at every forum you've been to, and accused every one of being the most nasty and vitriolic you've encountered (you called Frost Cloud "particularly nasty")you imagined it and should have expected it. Every time you've been asked to provide solid evidence or non-fallacious reasoning to support your position and been supplied substantial evidence to support all refutations, and every time you just parrot your bullshit about time will tell and pudding eating and astute observations.

You are a dishonest weasel.

There you go again name calling. I could not make any headway whatsoever at Frostcloud. You have no idea LadyShea. I can only say that coming onto forums like this was a bad idea from day one, but it took a long time for me to finally realize that no venue like this would ever be able to grasp this knowledge from a debate. I should have never done this, but it's too late now. All was not lost though. I've learned from each forum I've been to, and it's all part of the process. I had to go through this to get where I am today. I could not have done it any differently, as my will is not free to have done otherwise. :chin:

Spacemonkey · #**19825** 09-30-2012, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've learned from each forum I've been to...

No. No, you have not. That is the one thing you most certainly have not done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I had to go through this to get where I am today.

You're no further forward today than you were a decade ago. You still don't have a single convert who thinks your father's book has an non-comedic value at all. You haven't made an inch of progress.