A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In young love, sex is a major and central aspect of the relationship. Like Dr. Phil says, if sex is good it's 10% of the relationship. If it's bad, it becomes 90%.

No it is not dysfunctional. Your better than thou attitude is dysfunctional. Of course you can love someone more than just sex, but in the beginning most people want good sex, and it is one of the major causes for adultery or divorce, next to finances.

So now you want to bring my personal life into the discussion? No surprise. Actually, we wouldn't be divorced if he had understood the principles.

That is true, and as you read the book you would understand what he meant. You really have no understanding at all. We don't marry someone's brains if they don't have the physical attraction, which is first and foremost.

Dr. Phil is relevant why?

And yes, some of us marry brains. Some people fall in love on the Internet without ever seeing each other in person. And sometimes physical attraction follows from personality attraction...so physical attraction is not at all first and foremost to everyone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to get into this chapter until his first discovery is understood.

Why should LadyShea get into this chapter if you won't?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I'm still being called all kinds of names that don't apply to me. I am not a hypocrite, a liar, or a weasel.

Yes, you are.

Here is you being a hypocrite:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Copying the wiki definition will not cut it LadyShea. Explain in your own words where there is no contradiction. You can't do it because there is a major contradiction. All you are doing is looking up something on the internet in a desperate attempt to prove that Lessans is wrong.

Here is you lying:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answer as many questions as I can, in as a direct manner as I can.

Here is you weaseling (i.e. displaying an intellectually dishonest avoidance of a legitimate direct question):

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that his claim is empirical and it will eventually be proven true since the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I know you don't like this answer but his observations and perceptions were spot on and they are falsifiable. You can argue with me until the cows come home, but it doesn't change a thing.

And here is an example of a poster actually calling someone a name that does not apply:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're a liar Spacemonkey, so stop the pretense.

Unfortunately that poster was you.

If you would like more examples of your hypocrisy, lies, and weaseling evasion, they are very easy to find.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dr. Phil is relevant why?

Because he's a lard-assed fraud, and peacegirl likes lard-assed frauds.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support!

Are you hallucinating now? Where was this vote of support?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to thank the person who said I made a good impression on them. It helped to boost my morale since it's been pretty low lately. Thanks again for your vote of support!

It is possible that Peacegirl, somehow, thinks that she has voted on the poll and therefore there is one vote in her favor. However in spite of her best efforts Peacegirl, nor anyone else has voted that she has made a favorable impression on them. Perhaps in the 'Golden Age' Peacegirl has gotten some affirmative votes?

Or is it possible that Lessans is voting from the grave, stranger things have happened.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not only are you completely wrong, your basis for making these judgments are coming from your own personal experiences.

Well yes, where else should I come up with a basis for judging one's attitudes about relationships except my own experiences?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll say it again; you don't understand the first thing about this chapter or what he was trying to explain.

Then demonstrate that I've misunderstood, using the text itself, instead of just asserting I have misunderstood.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an obsession with sex to say that sex is central in romantic relationships.

It is an obsession with sex to say that sex is the only basis for romantic relationships.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Haven't you ever heard someone say: "I love you as a person, but I'm no longer in love with you." What do you think that means. It means I am not sexually attracted to you anymore.

Perhaps for some people it means that, for others it may mean something else. You can't know what it means for everyone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say anything that isn't already known.

It may be the opinion of others, but not all others, so no it is not "known", only thought to be true by some people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you're on another planet than I am, but sex is an important issue.

Yes, it is. But far from the only issue and far from the most important.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In young love, sex is a major and central aspect of the relationship. Like Dr. Phil says, if sex is good it's 10% of the relationship. If it's bad, it becomes 90%.

No it is not dysfunctional. Your attitude is dysfunctional because sex is very important. Of course you can love someone more than just sex, but in the beginning most people want good sex, and it is one of the major causes for adultery or divorce, next to finances.

So now you want to bring my personal life into the discussion? No surprise. Actually, we wouldn't be divorced if he had understood the principles.

That is true, and as you read the book you would understand what he meant. You really have no understanding at all. We don't marry someone's brains without looking first and foremost for physical attraction. Everything else is secondary. Ask any man if they would marry a woman because she's smart but she isn't attractive in their eyes. I bet you they will say they would not, unless they're lying.

So are you divorced because you are ugly?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Because he's a lard-assed fraud, and peacegirl likes lard-assed frauds.

Yes, but he makes good TV, and surely that must count for something?

[thedoc]

A Pa. Dutch saying that fits here,

"Kissin' wears out, cookin' don't"

A relationship based on sex and nothing else, is bound to fail.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So are you divorced because you are ugly?

Nope. I don't think that is the case.

About | See More Safety

[LadyShea]

That's a really awesome program she set up too. I wish you would focus on that, peacegirl.

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. I don't think that is the case.

About | See More Safety

Her gaol is to help children

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a really awesome program she set up too. I wish you would focus on that, peacegirl.

Yes, but I would hope that it is based on reality and not used as a platform to introduce Lessans nonsense to impressionable young children.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by But

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dr. Phil is relevant why?

It's a psychologist's declaration, which holds more weight because he has a title next to his name. He has done empirical studies and has been chosen as America's psychologist for a reason. I'm using his words, not Lessans', to give support to what most people already know.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And yes, some of us marry brains. Some people fall in love on the Internet without ever seeing each other in person. And sometimes physical attraction follows from personality attraction...so physical attraction is not at all first and foremost to everyone.

That's not the point. The point is that sex is important; in fact it's the most important when it comes to finding a life partner. I didn't say personality doesn't sometimes have an influence, but in the end sexual appeal is central in any romantic relationship. If physical attraction does not follow, then the conditions that allow a couple to be romantically involved are not there. You can love someone in a different way, but not in a sexual way which is the basis for marriage. You are so defensive for some reason that you think being in love shouldn't have anything to do with sex, but it does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to get into this chapter until his first discovery is understood.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should LadyShea get into this chapter if you won't?

Because no matter what I say online, it won't make sense unless the full chapter and the chapter before it is read. She has not done her homework.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I'm still being called all kinds of names that don't apply to me. I am not a hypocrite, a liar, or a weasel.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are.

You're making it more and more distasteful for me to talk to you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here is you being a hypocrite:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here is you lying:

I wasn't lying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here is you weaseling (i.e. displaying an intellectually dishonest avoidance of a legitimate direct question):

I'm sorry, that was not avoidance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating Spacemonkey, no matter how much you want more evidence. He was right. His observations were spot on. And it will be shown one day that this new world is going to be a reality, but you won't be instrumental because you are angry that he came to this understanding without using the "scientific" method, so you will not accept that this is not based on faith.

You've never admitted any mistake, or apologized for anything such as calling this a non-discovery. The more demanding you become, the less I'm going to answer you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you would like more examples of your hypocrisy, lies, and weaseling evasion, they are very easy to find.

It's all one's perspective, and it just shows how off base one can be.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

The problem here is that we're never free from compulsion, especially the kind that you think does not fall in this category. Obviously there are compulsions that are more obvious in degree, but that doesn't change anything. We are compelled to choose that which gives us greater satisfaction, which is why our choices are unfree.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

The movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is something we do all through life. It's not just when we're making choices. From one moment to the next we are moving off of the spot called "here" to "there" because there is dissatisfaction with the present position. This is called "life" and it pushes us in this direction from the day we're born. If you don't get this basic understanding, you won't get why this observation is accurate and is not a tautology.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Then I suggest you stick with your position. We can agree to disagree. How many times do I have to say that this supposed difference that allows compatibilism to get a free pass, is just words with no meaning. The kind of freedom that compatibilists believe justifies punishment and blame doesn't exist.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1098198]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a psychologist's declaration, which holds more weight because he has a title next to his name. He has done empirical studies and has been chosen as America's psychologist for a reason. I'm using his words, not Lessans', to give support to what most people already know.

.

But Dr. Phil is one of those established academics that Lessans was ranting about in the book, he even stated that Psychology was unnecessary and would disapear. So now you are kissing his ass to get a good review? have you sent him a copy of the book yet? I'm sure you will be all praise for him till he actually reads the book, or tries to, and gives his honest opinion. Then he'll be biased, and mean just like every other expert who refused to support this nonsense.

[LadyShea]

It's a psychologist's declaration, which holds more weight because he has a title next to his name. He has done empirical studies and has been chosen as America's psychologist for a reason. I'm using his words, not Lessans', to give support to what most people already know.

Dr. Phil doesn't even have a license to practice psychology. He was involved in a scandal with a former patient and faced sanctions. His dissertation was on Rheumatoid arthritis...nothing about relationships or sex.

Yes, he holds degrees in psychology including a PhD, but professionally he is a TV personality and author and motivational speaker, not a working counselor and certainly not a researcher or established academic. I can't find any empirical studies published under his name, so could you find that for me since you claim he has done them.

Dr. Phil McGraw: Six Lawsuits and Scandals, Natalee Holloway, Ted Williams & More - The Daily Beast

Despite conducting on-camera interventions and encouraging people to face their problems, he has always maintained that his business is to entertain, not provide any sort of therapy or counseling.

Via http://www.divinecaroline.com/112939...#ixzz2CqrCVqbU

When "Dr. Phil" first aired in 2002, California regulators - concerned about McGraw's folksy, off-the-cuff commentary - convened a panel to rule if he was acting as a clinical psychologist and in need of a license.

"It was determined what he was doing was more entertainment than psychology," said Russ Heimerich, a spokesman for the California Board of Psychology, explaining why state officials passed on regulating "Dr. Phil."

BETRAYAL - NYPOST.com

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't lying.

Yes, you were. You do not try to answer as many questions as you can, and you know it. You've made all kinds of excuses for NOT answering questions that you could have directly answered. Just yesterday I asked you about your contradictory claims about light at the retina, and you decided you were not going to answer because you wanted to change the subject back to free will. You also ignored the same question several times before deciding to change the subject. That is not answering as many questions as you can. Nor is it answering in a direct manner. You lied.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, that was not avoidance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating Spacemonkey, no matter how much you want more evidence. He was right. His observations were spot on. And it will be shown one day that this new world is going to be a reality, but you won't be instrumental because you are angry that he came to this understanding without using the "scientific" method, so you will not accept that this is not based on faith.

It was avoidance because it in no way, shape, or form addressed the point you were responding to (which was that the distinction I have been drawing between causation and psychological compulsion is not a matter of degree). Your response did not address my point. That is why it was a weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've never admitted any mistake, or apologized for anything such as calling this a non-discovery. The more demanding you become, the less I'm going to answer you.

I didn't make any mistake, and I don't I owe you any apology. Nor would any of these charges justify you calling me a liar even if they were true. I have never lied to you about anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's all one's perspective, and it just shows how off base one can be.

No, it is not just a matter of perspective. It is an objective fact that you are hypocritical, you lie, and you weasel instead of answering questions. These are objectively demonstrable facts about your behaviour in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you were. You do not try to answer as many questions as you can, and you know it. You've made all kinds of excuses for NOT answering questions that you could have directly answered. Just yesterday I asked you about your contradictory claims about light at the retina, and you decided you were not going to answer because you wanted to change the subject back to free will. You also ignored the same question several times before deciding to change the subject. That is not answering as many questions as you can. Nor is it answering in a direct manner. You lied.

It was avoidance because it in no way, shape, or form addressed the point you were responding to (which was that the distinction I have been drawing between causation and psychological compulsion is not a matter of degree). Your response did not address my point. That is why it was a weasel.

I didn't make any mistake, and I don't I owe you any apology. Nor would any of these charges justify you calling me a liar even if they were true. I have never lied to you about anything.

No, it is not just a matter of perspective. It is an objective fact that you are hypocritical, you lie, and you weasel instead of answering questions. These are objectively demonstrable facts about your behaviour in this thread.

This response just shows how desperate you are. You don't win Spacemonkey by trying to influence a group of people with no actual proof. I gave it to you and what did you do? Ignore it. Good bye.

[LadyShea]

That's not the point. The point is that sex is important; in fact it's the most important when it comes to finding a life partner. I didn't say personality doesn't sometimes have an influence, but in the end sexual appeal is central in any romantic relationship.

That is dysfunctional thinking. It's base and shallow. Diminishing a personality (which is the person) to "sometimes" having "an influence" in relationships?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If physical attraction does not follow, then the conditions that allow a couple to be romantically involved are not there. You can love someone in a different way, but not in a sexual way which is the basis for marriage. You are so defensive for some reason that you think being in love shouldn't have anything to do with sex, but it does.

I am not defensive, I am appalled and disgusted at such dehumanization and objectification.

And, Lessans claimed that sex is love, not that love merely "has something to do with" sex.

Originally Posted by Dr. Ruth

"your brain is your most important sex organ, not your genitals. Tickling your partner's intellect has as much to do with foreplay as does tickling the fun parts."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem here is that we're never free from compulsion, especially the kind that you think does not fall in this category. Obviously there are compulsions that are more obvious in degree, but that doesn't change anything. We are compelled to choose that which gives us greater satisfaction, which is why our choices are unfree.

Don't be ridiculous. The distinction I have been making is not just a matter of degree, as I have explained several times now. And it is obviously false that we are always under the kind of compulsion I have been talking about. It is not true that in every choice we feel "a strong and experienced psychological impulse towards a certain action that one feels unable to act against". That there may be other kinds of compulsion that do not fall in this category is irrelevant. Compatibilism states that no other forms of compulsion can prevent us from being morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The movement in the direction of greater satisfaction is something we do all through life. It's not just when we're making choices. From one moment to the next we are moving off of the spot called "here" to "there" because there is dissatisfaction with the present position. This is called "life" and it pushes us in this direction from the day we're born. If you don't get this basic understanding, you won't get why this observation is accurate and is not a tautology.

If the compulsion you are talking about (which differs from anything I've been talking about) is always present whether consciously experienced or not, then his satisfaction principle is not an empirical claim and it is not falsifiable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I suggest you stick with your position. We can agree to disagree. How many times do I have to say that this supposed difference that allows compatibilism to get a free pass, is just words with no meaning. The kind of freedom that compatibilists believe justifies punishment and blame doesn't exist.

You don't get to simply assert that compatibilism is just words with no meaning - not when I've explicitly explained to you the meaning of the words by which I have defined it. Nor does it make any sense to say that the compatibilist kind of freedom I have defined does not exist. For that to be the case we would have to always be either coerced or subject to the strong form of psychological compulsion I explained to you, in every single choice we make. That is obviously not the case. You are not being rational. You are not putting thought into your responses. And you still haven't responded to post #21988, despite my having bumped it three times already since you asked me to bump it.