A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, quoting a post only to reply with skip is the oddest thing I've seen in a while. It's such a passive aggressive tactic.

Obviously, you don't understand why I had to do this. I'm disgusted by the way people name call and use other tactics that are totally unfair and should not be part of a serious debate. This forum is very similar to a witch hunt, for lack of a better word. I know this is not an actual witch hunt, but it feels that way. I am not even saying that people can't disagree, but this type of interaction is distorting my position. Even if people think they're right they have no right to constantly and consistently belittle me. This is being used to attack my credibility for no reason, and I'm sick and tired of being told I'm wrong for reasons that are unjustified. I want the person who posted to know that I did read what they had to say, but I will not be answering. That is the purpose of <skip>

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry, but you are still wrong. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Being caused to do something by previous circumstances does not mean you have been caused to do something you had made up your mind not to do.

It can be used as an excuse Spacemonkey. That's all I'm saying.

[Vivisectus]

I'm not answering this post Vivisectus. You're beginning to get nasty and you get like this when you aren't winning the debate so you resort to name calling like everyone else in here. It's extremely underhanded, and I won't put up with it.

You are the one who continually needs to be explained what the point under discussion is, that you cannot use an idea as proof of it's own correctness, that mere claims without support do not a point make, etc. etc. etc.

And once you get cornered into having to admit your position leads to idiotic outcomes, you first try to bury it in waffle, and if that does not work, you find some excuse no to have to address the point. The reason you do not respond is because you have no response. It is just that you want to avoid having to admit that you were simply wrong, because then the book is wrong, and you just cannot accept that. It is your standard MO.

You keep doing it, despite the fact that this has been pointed out to you over and over again. We all know this is how you roll, and that you are only here because it helps you pretend this book matters at all. Deep down you know perfectly well it doesn't.

That is why you won't send the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum I provided you with. It is why you still think this book is going to have any effect, despite the fact that NO ONE thinks the book is anything but a pile of grade-a piffle?

You even admitted that the book lacks support for it's central idea: the idea that without blame, no-one could want to do harm that is not a retaliation, and then happily proceed to claim it provides us with all the evidence.

You said: how can the past cause us to do anything when it does not exist? I explained to you how. You then tried desperately to drag in all kinds of other things, none of which were relevant or changed that fact.

In stead of simply admitting you had the wrong end of the stick, you waffle, evade, and when cornered resort to histrionics.... as usual.

[LadyShea]

I decided to answer one small portion of this post just in case no one comes forward to say they want me to stay, and I won't have a chance

Why are your decisions based on what we want you to do? Again, this is passive aggressive and manipulative. Narcissists use this tactic all the time.

You "have a chance" to do whatever you want. You could post here until you die or you can leave tomorrow. What we want you to do is irrelevant to what you can do or choose to do.

You are putting responsibility on us for your actions.

[Vivisectus]

Worse: we are somehow responsible for her inability to create a compelling case for the book: it would be completely persuasive, if only we were not such meanies.

Apparently the book only makes sense if you are already convinced it does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are your decisions based on what we want you to do? Again, this is passive aggressive and manipulative. Narcissists use this tactic all the time.

You "have a chance" to do whatever you want. You could post here until you die or you can leave tomorrow. What we want you to do is irrelevant to what you can do or choose to do.

You are putting responsibility on us for your actions.

I am definitely putting the responsibility on people who not only don't understand what I'm saying, but because they don't understand are attacking me with name calling, just to convince themselve that they are right. That is not right LadyShea in a serious debate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Worse: we are somehow responsible for her inability to create a compelling case for the book: it would be completely persuasive, if only we were not such meanies.

Apparently the book only makes sense if you are already convinced it does.

You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is not a give and take. This is a dictatorship and god forbid anyone disagrees with the popular ideas, you're in trouble.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are your decisions based on what we want you to do? Again, this is passive aggressive and manipulative. Narcissists use this tactic all the time.

You "have a chance" to do whatever you want. You could post here until you die or you can leave tomorrow. What we want you to do is irrelevant to what you can do or choose to do.

You are putting responsibility on us for your actions.

I said many times that I am not expecting you to agree with my position, but I am demanding respect LadyShea. What is so confusing here?

[Vivisectus]

Perhaps this is another topic that is best discussed in your new forum where people are only allowed to agree with Lessans. How is that coming along?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one who continually needs to be explained what the point under discussion is, that you cannot use an idea as proof of it's own correctness, that mere claims without support do not a point make, etc. etc. etc.

And once you get cornered into having to admit your position leads to idiotic outcomes, you first try to bury it in waffle, and if that does not work, you find some excuse no to have to address the point. The reason you do not respond is because you have no response. It is just that you want to avoid having to admit that you were simply wrong, because then the book is wrong, and you just cannot accept that. It is your standard MO.

You keep doing it, despite the fact that this has been pointed out to you over and over again. We all know this is how you roll, and that you are only here because it helps you pretend this book matters at all. Deep down you know perfectly well it doesn't.

That is why you won't send the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum I provided you with. It is why you still think this book is going to have any effect, despite the fact that NO ONE thinks the book is anything but a pile of grade-a piffle?

You even admitted that the book lacks support for it's central idea: the idea that without blame, no-one could want to do harm that is not a retaliation, and then happily proceed to claim it provides us with all the evidence.

You said: how can the past cause us to do anything when it does not exist? I explained to you how. You then tried desperately to drag in all kinds of other things, none of which were relevant or changed that fact.

In stead of simply admitting you had the wrong end of the stick, you waffle, evade, and when cornered resort to histrionics.... as usual.

Vivisectus, I give you credit for your sleight of hand magic. This is not about waffling or anything else you are accusing me of. I have explained in a very consistent and clear manner why the belief in free will is faulty. You come back with an attack on my character. This is insane. I seriously don't know your motivation, but I can safely say that it is not about learning the truth. It is about your being right in the eyes of your cronies.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is not a give and take. This is a dictatorship and god forbid anyone disagrees with the popular ideas, you're in trouble.

That is just your way to try to blame us for the fact your book makes no sense.

We have a simple solution: send it in to some professional philosophers and see what they think! If we are wrong about the book, they can explain to us how and why. If we are not, then you have fulfilled your duty and brought the book to leading scientists who can evaluate the book.

But you are not interested in that at all, now are you?

[Vivisectus]

No, you made the statement "the past cannot cause us to do anything, because it does not exist anymore".

I then showed you that that statement is incorrect. You then piled on the waffle, because that is easier for you than simply saying "I seem to have conflated being caused to do something with being coerced into doing something, and I am not entirely sure that the book does not make the same mistake a few times."

It really is that simple. Just read back.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, quoting a post only to reply with skip is the oddest thing I've seen in a while. It's such a passive aggressive tactic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, you don't understand why I had to do this.

You didn't have to do this, you chose to do this. Because you are a narcissist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm disgusted by the way people name call and use other tactics that are totally unfair and should not be part of a serious debate.

You have stated multiple times that you are not here to debate, but to share and teach. Your faith claims of "time will tell" and refusal to acknowledge or address valid criticisms and points should not be part of a serious debate either....but there we are.

This is the type of discussion you have helped create.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This forum is very similar to a witch hunt, for lack of a better word. I know this is not an actual witch hunt, but it feels that way.

Histrionic persecution complex...again. You walk into this "witch-hunt" voluntarily repeatedly. Nobody has hunted you down and forcibly brought you here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not even saying that people can't disagree, but this type of interaction is distorting my position.

You have every opportunity to clarify and support your position. You aren't being edited or censored in any way. You are voluntarily participating in "this type of interaction". So, why should this complaint be taken at all seriously? It's like the whining of a child.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if people think they're right they have no right to constantly and consistently belittle me.

Of course they have the right. Freedom of speech is a right granted us by the US Constitution. You have the right to listen, ignore, or respond as you see fit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is being used to attack my credibility for no reason, and I'm sick and tired of being told I'm wrong for reasons that are unjustified.

I want the person who posted to know that I did read what they had to say, but I will not be answering.

It is up to you how to respond to your own feelings. If you are sick and tired of something you have multiple options on how to address those emotions. You've chosen, this time, to be petulant and passive aggressive with your petty and juvenile little "snip". Yay you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said many times that I am not expecting you to agree with my position, but I am demanding respect LadyShea. What is so confusing here?

Respect cannot be taken via demands. Respect is granted or given, only.

And what does that have to do with the question anyway? Why are your decisions based on what we want you to do?

[Vivisectus]

By the way, the introduction to your book has just becomes a blatant lie: it states that this "discovery" never hit the mainstream because you and Lessans have been unable to get it to the attention of "leading scientists"... but that is just not true. The truth is that you are unwilling to have it evaluated unless you feel pretty certain the reception will be uncritical. You just want the book confirmed, not critically examined.

[thedoc]

Respect is granted or given only after it is earned with honesty and forthright answers to questions. Evasion, lies, and false accusations usually earn disrespect.

[thedoc]

The other difficulty is that to have a serious discussion, it would be helpful to have a serious subject. Certainly there are points of the book that warrent serious consideration but the bulk of the text is laughably amusing at best.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one who continually needs to be explained what the point under discussion is, that you cannot use an idea as proof of it's own correctness, that mere claims without support do not a point make, etc. etc. etc.

And once you get cornered into having to admit your position leads to idiotic outcomes, you first try to bury it in waffle, and if that does not work, you find some excuse no to have to address the point. The reason you do not respond is because you have no response. It is just that you want to avoid having to admit that you were simply wrong, because then the book is wrong, and you just cannot accept that. It is your standard MO.

You keep doing it, despite the fact that this has been pointed out to you over and over again. We all know this is how you roll, and that you are only here because it helps you pretend this book matters at all. Deep down you know perfectly well it doesn't.

That is why you won't send the first 2 chapters to the philosophy forum I provided you with. It is why you still think this book is going to have any effect, despite the fact that NO ONE thinks the book is anything but a pile of grade-a piffle?

You even admitted that the book lacks support for it's central idea: the idea that without blame, no-one could want to do harm that is not a retaliation, and then happily proceed to claim it provides us with all the evidence.

You said: how can the past cause us to do anything when it does not exist? I explained to you how. You then tried desperately to drag in all kinds of other things, none of which were relevant or changed that fact.

In stead of simply admitting you had the wrong end of the stick, you waffle, evade, and when cornered resort to histrionics.... as usual.

I have never evaded any of your concerns, but you are using this to make people feel I did. This is wrong Vivisectus. Just because you are one of the groupies in here does not mean you're right. You have no understanding whatsoever of this knowledge if you think that your refutations disprove this knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Respect cannot be taken via demands. Respect is granted or given, only.

And what does that have to do with the question anyway? Why are your decisions based on what we want you to do?

My decision to stay or leave is very much related to whether anyone is truly interested in this thread.
Spacemonkey has beaten into my head that there is no one here who gives a dam. So if no one speaks up on my behalf, I will interpret that as a "no" and choose to leave in the direction of greater satisfaction. I am sure this will make Spacemonkey very happy.

[peacegirl]

I Think Equality Just Found A New Anthem

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am definitely putting the responsibility on people who not only don't understand what I'm saying, but because they don't understand are attacking me with name calling, just to convince themselve that they are right.

Actually, as was pointed out long ago, your problem is that people do understand what you're saying. (To the extent that it makes any sense, anyway.)

Just because someone thinks your ideas are wholly unsupported nonsense and are willing to say so doesn't mean that they don't understand.

But then, you don't seem to be capable of conceptualizing that anyone could understand Lessans and yet fail to believe.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be used as an excuse Spacemonkey. That's all I'm saying.

Only by those, who like you and Lessans, do not understand the implications of determinism. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Is the problem here that you don't understand what the word 'implication' means?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Perhaps this is another topic that is best discussed in your new forum where people are only allowed to agree with Lessans. How is that coming along?

I decided against having a forum for the time being. It's too time consuming. I do have a contact page and if people want to start a meet-up group to discuss the book, they are welcome to do that. This discovery warrants this kind of attention and much more.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said many times that I am not expecting you to agree with my position, but I am demanding respect LadyShea. What is so confusing here?

People here respect you enough to be honest with you about your disturbing mental condition and consistently irrational behaviour.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Only by those, who like you and Lessans, do not understand the implications of determinism. Being caused to do something does not imply that one was compelled to do it against one's desires. Is the problem here that you don't understand what the word 'implication' means?

I do understand the implication of determinism. Being able to say, "I was caused to kill this person because my will is not free," as an excuse for someone to be released of all responsibility, is a valid concern and one of the predicaments that play out with those taking this position.