A revolution in thought - Page 882

LadyShea · #**22026** 11-20-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results

Just for you, peacegirl

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

peacegirl · #**22027** 11-20-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results

Just for you, peacegirl

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

You throw a cheap shot and you know it. Now you are trying to lick your wounds, and it won't stick because you're backpeddling.

thedoc · #**22028** 11-20-2012, 03:43 PM

Such an overwhelming response from the lurkers! One lurker voted and 5 participants and no guests are looking at either thread. But Peacegirl, as usual, takes this non-evidence and claims victory. If Peacegirl ran for political office she would claim victory with one vote, no matter how many votes the other candidate got.

LadyShea · #**22029** 11-20-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results

Just for you, peacegirl

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

You made a cheap shot and you know it. Now you are trying to lick your wounds, and it won't stick because you're backpeddling.

You told me I needed to take a survey, and I am doing so. The poll will be open for votes until 12/10

peacegirl · #**22030** 11-20-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in order to know what people are actually thinking you need to take a survey and come back and report the results

Just for you, peacegirl

Participants and lurkers, please respond to the poll at the following link: Stastical analysis for peacegirl - Freethought Forum

Poll responses are anonymous

You throw a cheap shot and you know it. Now you are trying to lick your wounds, and it won't stick because you're backpeddling.

You told me I needed to take a survey, and I am doing so. The poll will be open for votes until 12/10

More importantly than this stupid survey, if you want me to engage with you, you better had apologize for calling Lessans horny and lying about him. You are not going to get away with this. :fuming:

LadyShea · #**22031** 11-20-2012, 04:29 PM

You refused to provide any context that could make the passage in question read as anything but dehumanizing by reducing people to their genitals. You said I had to get it myself, and I did.

LadyShea · #**22032** 11-20-2012, 04:35 PM

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

LadyShea · #**22033** 11-20-2012, 04:47 PM

Quote:

you better had apologize for calling Lessans horny

He said, multiple times and in multiple ways that sexual satisfaction=love. So being horny simply means being very in love, doesn't it?

When I objected to this dismissal of all aspects humanity aside from sexual relations, you accused me of considering sex a dirty word and being sexually repressed.

What's wrong with saying Lessans really wanted sex?

peacegirl · #**22034** 11-20-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You refused to provide any context that could make the passage in question read as anything but dehumanizing by reducing people to their genitals. You said I had to get it myself, and I did.

No, you don't get to call him names and then put the blame on me for your blunder. You didn't read the chapter which would have made you understand what he meant and why he said what he said. I knew you would never admit you're wrong and apologize. You're too proud.

peacegirl · #**22035** 11-20-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

you better had apologize for calling Lessans horny

He said, multiple times and in multiple ways that sexual satisfaction=love. So being horny simply means being very in love, doesn't it?

When I objected to this dismissal of all aspects humanity aside from sexual relations, you accused me of considering sex a dirty word and being sexually repressed.

What's wrong with saying Lessans really wanted sex?

I never said you were "sexually repressed." I challenge you to find this anywhere in the thread. All I said was that sexual satisfaction plays a central role in romantic relationships. To joke about this and falsely charge Lessans with a desire for sex as his motive for this chapter is Horrible.

peacegirl · #**22036** 11-20-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

Wow do you play dirty, don't you LadyShea? After everything I just went through trying to explain why you have completely misconstrued this excerpt, you go plaster it online again. Obviously, you get off on this. And, fyi, this chapter has to do with his second discovery, Words, Not Reality, not his first. You are so confused LadyShea and confused people say stupid things.

thedoc · #**22037** 11-20-2012, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

Wow do you play dirty, don't you LadyShea? After everything I just went through to explain why you're wrong, you go plaster this sentence online again. Obviously, you you get off on this. And this chapter has to do with his second discovery Words, Not Reality, not his first. You are so confused LadyShea and trying to make this work look silly. You will not win.

Just how is quoting Lessans words from the book, playing 'DIRTY', unless Lessans words were 'DIRTY', which would make him a 'DIRTY' old sex crazy horndog. But I would defend him and say he probably wasn't 'that old'.

thedoc · #**22038** 11-20-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused LadyShea and trying to make this work look silly. You will not win.

I feel I must correct you here, LadyShea is not trying to make Lessans work look silly, he has done that very nicely all by himself.

LadyShea · #**22039** 11-20-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

Wow do you play dirty, don't you LadyShea? After everything I just went through trying to explain why you have completely misconstrued this excerpt, you go plaster it online again. Obviously, you get off on this. And, fyi, this chapter has to do with his second discovery, Words, Not Reality, not his first. You are so confused LadyShea and confused people say stupid things.

I quoted Lessans and asked you to provide the context you claim I took the passage out of, and/or explain the excerpt in a way that makes his very clear words mean something not disgusting and dehumanizing. You refused.

How is it playing dirty to quote Lessans and offer my opinions on it? Did Lessans say that? Yes he did.

peacegirl · #**22040** 11-20-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Interesting, peacegirl may have been correct in stating there are real people lurking her thread. After posting this poll, about 10 guests are registering right now (I don't know how many registrations are happening at any given time on average, so it may be coincidental).

There ya go, peacegirl, I admit I might have been wrong about the bots. We'll see if these registrations lead to poll votes.

So if these registrations lead to positive poll votes that say they want to hear more, what will have to say then? Could you admit you were wrong in your statistical analysis, or will you try to cover up your blaring mistake?

I was not wrong in my statistical analysis of the posts in the thread, which is all I claimed to be using as evidence.

I may have been wrong about the number and interest of lurkers, however. I will admit my mistake should that prove to be the case

Apologize while you're at it.

Quote:

So there you go, there is support for this thread which throws out your conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you claiming as support for the thread? What conclusions have I made that must be thrown out at this time?

That's not the point. You made a statement that no one is taking me seriously here, and that next time I should do this or that in order to get a better audience. And I said where's your evidence. Now you're backpeddling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Face the music LadyShea, and admit that you were wrong, or you will be thought of as someone who is no more than an angry citizen who is a wannabe scientist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wrong about what? Thus far only one self-proclaimed lurker has voted. You should ask those you think are lurking and are interested to vote.

I'm not wasting my time doing that. Maybe they aren't signed up. Maybe they don't want to vote. That still doesn't mean that you know what's going on in their head.

Now let's get back to the book instead of going off on another tangent, which is your specialty.

thedoc · #**22041** 11-20-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's wrong with saying Lessans really wanted sex?

Wow, and did he ever, considering how much of the book was concerning sex, he must have been really preoccupied with it. I wonder if he stopped or slowed down after he needed glasses?

peacegirl · #**22042** 11-20-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Of course language is the only way to communicate concepts, but where does this say we cannot reject definitions that are not useful because they are empty words that have no relationship to reality?

They are related to the reality of how people understand and communicate about the concepts and terms in question. They are useful because there is no other way to convey the concepts except by using words.

Math doesn't need definitions. One of something is one of something in all languages and across all cultures. You can demonstrate the concept of 1+1 without using any language at all or using different words and symbols to represent the numbers.

Exactly. If the underlying proposition is correct, the definition will reflect that accuracy.

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense as a response to what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot explain the concepts of free will, determinism, or greater satisfaction without using common definitions. So while you are of course free to reject a definition, that doesn't mean anyone else will agree with your idiosyncratic usage of terms...and may in turn reject your definition.

Of course you can use a common definition. It's a universal law. Universal laws can be explained no matter what part of the world you live in.

Again what? You didn't address the point at all. Are you drunk?

Anytime you communicate you have to have a common definition, or you won't be able to understand what the person is saying. If my definition of a dog is a cat, then my definition will confuse you if you understand a dog to be something else. Definitions can only be useful if it's common to both parties.

peacegirl · #**22043** 11-20-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

instead of projecting what you think it will be like which is just a bunch of false imaginings

Isn't this the exact test you have told us to conduct on ourselves regarding conscience in the New World...to imagine ourselves in it? Why is the imagination a valid test for conscience but not a valid test for relationships?

ETA:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can test yourself by imagining how you would feel. Picture that the new world is here, and no one is going to ever again judge you, blame you, criticize you, or punish you for anything you might do. If you hurt someone, they are not going to come after you and ask you why you did this because they already know that it was a compulsion beyond your control. Just thinking about hurting someone, under these conditions, makes me extremely uncomfortable.

It is not easy to imagine what the new world will look like because of all the changes. If you're not careful you will run into trouble like Vivisectus did. Imagining how you would feel in the new world if you killed two children after running a red light, and knowing in advance that you would never be blamed by anyone anywhere, is not difficult because it involves only how you would feel.

Spacemonkey · #**22044** 11-20-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Causal determination means just that: causal. I don't know what kind of causal determination you are trying to define, but it makes no sense at all. If something is caused, it is not free, and I don't care how you try to make a square fit into a hole, it doesn't fly.

I haven't been trying to define causal determination. I have been clarifying the kind of compulsion compatibilism requires us to be free from. If you don't understand what I've been explaining, then try reading the posts where I have explained it and asking about any parts you don't follow. That would be more constructive than merely dogmatically asserting and repeating that our choices cannot be both caused and free. Compatibilism shows this to be false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an empirical claim and it will be proven to be true. I know you don't like this answer but his observations and perceptions were spot on. You can argue all you want, but it doesn't change a thing.

As an empirical claim it is obviously false. We do not always experience any psychological compulsion to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Often considerations of satisfaction don't enter into our decision-making at all, and many choices are made without any experience of compulsion. When you acknowledge this to be true, his satisfaction principle ceases to be an empirical claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Other than coercion or other psychological motives which compatibilism tries to separate, it is exactly what you have been talking about because it is the opposite of free will, which is having no compulsion. And even if the compulsion compatibilism is referring to is a conscious act, it doesn't change the direction desire is forced to go. You are trying desperately to make a distinction between definitions that give compatibilism some legitimacy, but you can't because there is no legitimacy when you're describing a contradiction.

There is no contradiction. Stop weaseling and address post #21988 where I explained in detail the difference between compatibilist freedom and contra-causal freedom, along with the kind of compulsion compatibilism is talking about. You have no actual argument against compatibilism at all.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**22045** 11-20-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get to use a term in the way it is normally defined Spacemonkey.

You can use your words in any way that you like, but if you insist on defining a term differently to how it is being used by those you are arguing against, then you will be arguing against a strawman instead of the view they are actually expressing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't insist you do anything at all. Do what you want, and define terms any way that you want, but you won't get any closer to the truth. Non-causal compulsion is an oxymoron.

Here you make a valid point. "Non-causal compulsion" was a very poor choice of words on my part. Obviously all compulsion will be causal. The point of the distinction I was making is that some (of what you wish to call) compulsion is merely causal, while there is also a stronger form of compulsion which involves a strong and experienced psychological impulse towards a certain action that one feels unable to act against. Consider a drug addict choosing to inject himself (or you choosing to continue posting here). There is a strong and experienced psychological compulsion which involves more than merely being caused to choose as one does. It is a causal influence which overrides all other causal factors, rendering the final choice largely immune from influence by changes in any other antecedent circumstances.

A causally determined choice need not involve any such experienced psychological compulsion. I can be caused to choose toast over cereal for breakfast without feeling compelled to choose one over the other. The choice is still rigid in the sense that given those exact antecedent circumstances I would always have chosen the same. But it is not rigid in the stronger sense involved in the kind of compulsion compatibilists speak of. In this case the choice is rigid across not only the actual antecedent circumstances, but also a wide range of counterfactually differing circumstances. The drug addict will still inject himself even if offered a great deal not to do so, or if the consequences are known to be very bad. Differing antecedent circumstances will not be likely to result in a different choice given this kind of compulsion.

Compatibilism says that freedom from coercion and this stronger sense of compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. It says that merely being caused to choose as one does (regardless of whether or not you wish to also call this 'compulsion') does not prevent us from being morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as compatibilist freedom, as if this is different from the standard usage of the word. You cannot give your sacred belief a free pass because you don't want it to be wrong. If compatibilist freedom requires only freedom from coercion, you still are left with the standard definition of free will. If compatibilist freedom requires freedom from compulsion, you also still left with the standard definition of free will because "compulsion" means "compelled". If one is compelled, he does not have a free choice.

There is a compatibilist notion of freedom which differs from the contra-causal variety. I have defined it for you, and will do so again. And contra-causal/libertarian free will is not the 'standard usage'. Plus you are still equivocating between different senses of compulsion.

Compatibilist free will: The freedom to choose without the kind of experienced psychological compulsion which renders a choice highly resistant to variation in antecent causal conditions (i.e. no 'compulsion' beyond mere causal determination), and without coercion, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices.

Contra-causal/Libertarian free will: The freedom to choose without compulsion, coercion, or causal necessity, and to be able to act in accordance with one's choices, i.e. such that with exactly the same antecedent causal conditions, one could have chosen otherwise.

Compatibilism says that the former is sufficient, and the latter is unnecessary, for making us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions. And you still have no argument or rational objection against it.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**22046** 11-20-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

Wow do you play dirty, don't you LadyShea? After everything I just went through trying to explain why you have completely misconstrued this excerpt, you go plaster it online again. Obviously, you get off on this. And, fyi, this chapter has to do with his second discovery, Words, Not Reality, not his first. You are so confused LadyShea and confused people say stupid things.

I quoted Lessans and asked you to provide the context you claim I took the passage out of, and/or explain the excerpt in a way that makes his very clear words mean something not disgusting and dehumanizing. You refused.

How is it playing dirty to quote Lessans and offer my opinions on it? Did Lessans say that? Yes he did.

This is playing below the belt LadyShea and you know it. You love playing Ms. Innocent, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was a dirty old horndog who wanted to have relationships with vaginas rather than people.

LadyShea · #**22047** 11-20-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Imagining how you would feel if you hurt someone in the new world knowing that you would not be blamed even if you killed two children after running a red light and the parents were crying bitterly

I would feel horrible about that in this world. No need to project my imagination into a no blame world to know how I would feel about killing people.

No need to project myself into the new world to know that teenagers brains are not fully developed, nor do they have good control of their emotions due to hormones, and so marrying in adolescence would be a terrible idea.

LadyShea · #**22048** 11-20-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For all you interested lurkers, here is the passage I find disgusting in the chapter where Lessans is describing relationships in the New World operating under the principle of Thou Shall Not Blame

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If a boy desires a type of girl like Elizabeth Taylor who does not desire his type, he is compelled to put the proverbial horse before the cart and search for the type of girl who is ready to have sex with him. He will then fall in love with her sexual organs.

~Lessans page 162 of .pdf

Wow do you play dirty, don't you LadyShea? After everything I just went through trying to explain why you have completely misconstrued this excerpt, you go plaster it online again. Obviously, you get off on this. And, fyi, this chapter has to do with his second discovery, Words, Not Reality, not his first. You are so confused LadyShea and confused people say stupid things.

I quoted Lessans and asked you to provide the context you claim I took the passage out of, and/or explain the excerpt in a way that makes his very clear words mean something not disgusting and dehumanizing. You refused.

How is it playing dirty to quote Lessans and offer my opinions on it? Did Lessans say that? Yes he did.

This is playing below the belt LadyShea and you know it. You love playing Ms. Innocent, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was a dirty old horndog who wanted to have relationships with vaginas rather than people.

I was honestly calling it as I have always seen it...that passage is vomitous and indicates something was seriously wrong with Lessans and his thoughts on love and relationships. Using the crude language "dirty horndog" to do so was meant to get you to stop weaseling by refusing to provide the context and explanation.

Spacemonkey · #**22049** 11-20-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is playing below the belt LadyShea and you know it. You love playing Ms. Innocent, don't you?

Playing below the belt and playing Ms. Innocent hardly seem like compatible charges. Is there any colloquialism you can use without butchering it?

Also, is there some reason why you have ignored the very posts you asked me to bump for you?

Angakuk · #**22050** 11-20-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether you hear him or not is another story since you, just like Koan, Vivisectus, TLR, Angakuk, Spacemonkey, Dragar, thedoc, anonymous, and others, don't believe someone could come online and have an authentic discovery and are fighting me tooth and nail. That's the source of the problem.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem entertaining the idea that "someone could come online and have an authentic discovery". What I do have a problem with is your insistence that Lessans made such a discovery when all of the available evidence demonstrates that he did no such thing and no evidence has been offered in support of the claim that he did make such a discovery.

Angakuk, can you explain the discovery which you claim to understand so well?

I challenge you to quote me ever having said that I understood Lessans' discovery so well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe people have free will, then you get to keep your blame and punishment, but if you believe that man has no free will (because his actions are caused by antecedent events), then you do not get to keep your blame and punishment because he had no choice.

I have asked this question before, and got no response from you. So, here it is again.

On what basis do you claim that blame cannot be assigned, or punishment administered, if man's will is not free?

The basis that blame cannot be assigned or punishment administered is the very fact that if man's will is not free, he cannot be held responsible. But this poses a major obstacle, for how can we not blame and punish people for huting others? This has been a major stumbling block and as of yet no one has been able to come up with an adequate answer to this dilemma until now. Chapter Two addresses this.

Show me this fact. I asked you for the basis upon which you claim that blame cannot be assigned or punishment administered, if man's will is not free, and you answer by simply restating the claim. This is not helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer it; just think about it because you have a tendency to give knee-jerk answers.

How do you know that his answers are knee-jerk? Do you have some source of evidence regarding how much consideration he gives to his responses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...confused people say stupid things.

A truth that you demonstrate with nearly every word you post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now let's get back to the book instead of going off on another tangent, which is your specialty.