Misunderstood responses to New Discovery

[peacegirl]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:53 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:33 am
peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:02 am

Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

This discovery does not judge anyone. You have missed the entire meaning behind the two-sided equation. I should have prepared myself for the complete misunderstanding of these principles.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

It doesn't matter what brought them to that minute. Again, it's none of your damn business. Are you an evangelist? You are extremely judgmental when this discovery removes all judgment.

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.

Hmm, so you say it's a choice then? But you say nothing about how your deterministic function works with that choice they are making... Meanwhile not everyone views their sexuality, gender identity and so on actual choices that are available to them, they see these aspects of their selves as determined in advance. So where do you draw the line of that which is chosen and that which is not? Blurring the lines as your theory does, necessarily comes at a cost.

Whatever they believe is their business, not yours. There is no cost other than your snooping into someone else's life and making a judgment, which only belongs to God, not you. Last time I looked, God did not look like you.
Top

[FlashDangerpants]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:53 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:02 am
Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

OMG, you understood nothing. It's shocking!!! It doesn't matter what brought them to that minute. Again, it's none of your damn business. Are you an evangelist? You are extremely judgmental which this discovery prevents.

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.

Hmm, so you say it's a choice then? But you say nothing about how your deterministic function works with that choice they are making... Meanwhile not everyone views their sexuality, gender identity and so on actual choices that are available to them, they see these aspects of their selves as determined in advance. So where do you draw the line of that which is chosen and that which is not? Blurring the lines as your theory does, necessarily comes at a cost.

Thatever they believe is their business, not yours. There is no cost other than your snooping into someone else's life and making a judgment, which only belongs to God. Are you God?
Top

You said your philosophical cult program can cure mental illness by just thinking about determinism, I am just establishing how that works. So far you have offered nothing much for Ken's autism or Veggie's personality disorder. So I asked what you offer for gender dysphoria, the answer is another bucket of nothing.

Whenever detail is requested your panacea defies description for some reason. Not my fault.

[peacegirl]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:53 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:02 am
Ooof, for somebody with all the answers hidden behind a door that's hidden behind an invisible dragon, you don't seem to have much certainty.

It's up to them in that current minute. But everything that brings them to that minute is determined and everything after it too. So which minute do they set their identity in?

OMG, you understood nothing. It's shocking!!! It doesn't matter what brought them to that minute. Again, it's none of your damn business. Are you an evangelist? You are extremely judgmental which this discovery prevents.

Whatever they choose to set their identity in. It's none of your damn business. This is disturbing.


Thatever they believe is their business, not yours. There is no cost other than your snooping into someone else's life and making a judgment, which only belongs to God. Are you God?
Top

You said your philosophical cult program can cure mental illness by just thinking about determinism, I am just establishing how that works. So far you have offered nothing much for Ken's autism or Veggie's personality disorder. So I asked what you offer for gender dysphoria, the answer is another bucket of nothing.

These personality disorders are the result of the environment we live in. There is no proof that these individuals have some genetic abnormality. You're way off.

This program (which is not a program by the way) that you call a cult removes the very thing that drives the creation of cults that would suck vulnerable people in. You deceived me into thinking you were being objective. You are anything but what you portrayed yourself to be. You have now twisted everything that was written. You have no understanding of the two-sided equation at all. Nada.

Whenever detail is requested your panacea defies description for some reason. Not my fault.

Whoa, what detail has been requested? Never once did you ask me a relevant question that would have shown me you understood what was written. This tells me you were playing me. I know you can't explain the two-sided equation or why man's will is not free. You don't have a clue.

[FlashDangerpants]

peacegirl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 25, 2025 11:53 am


OMG, you understood nothing. It's shocking!!! It doesn't matter what brought them to that minute. Again, it's none of your damn business. Are you an evangelist? You are extremely judgmental which this discovery prevents.

You said your philosophical cult program can cure mental illness by just thinking about determinism, I am just establishing how that works. So far you have offered nothing much for Ken's autism or Veggie's personality disorder. So I asked what you offer for gender dysphoria, the answer is another bucket of nothing.

Talk about a cult? This program that you call it removes any pressure to join any type of group that would define it as a cult. What is wrong with you FlashDangerpants. You deceived me into acting like you were being objective in your analysis. You are the worst because you have now twisted everything that was written. You have no understanding of the two-sided equation. Nada.

I jumped through the hoops you placed in front of your second and third discoveries. Objectively you go to pains to hide them which is objectively suspicious. I stopped commenting on problems with things like your two-sided equation because it made you sulk.

I withheld judgement only to the extent that I told you about up front, and I was perfectly clear about not stipulating to the "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" that is at the heart of your two-sided equation because that bit is quite clearly utter gash. You were not lied to.

Whenever detail is requested your panacea defies description for some reason. Not my fault.

Whoa, what detail has been requested? All you are doing is arguing, never once asking a relevant question. This tells me you played on me.

I am asking how your thing works to end mental illness. In your own words your claim was that "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." That deserves a bit of unpacking doesn't it? It's a pretty big claim to try and explain as just "The way children are raised." There are no activities in your theory except thinking about determinism. How does thinking about determinism actually put an end to Borderline Personality Disorder or Schizoaffective disorder? Actually. Like how does this actually work?

So don't lie to my face, I have asked relevant questions, the difficulty is working out what ones you are able to answer if you happen to be in the mood to try. That describes a population somewhere in the region zero.

[peacegirl]

You said your philosophical cult program can cure mental illness by just thinking about determinism, I am just establishing how that works. So far you have offered nothing much for Ken's autism or Veggie's personality disorder. So I asked what you offer for gender dysphoria, the answer is another bucket of nothing.

Talk about a cult? This program that you call it removes any pressure to join any type of group that would define it as a cult. What is wrong with you FlashDangerpants. You deceived me into acting like you were being objective in your analysis. You are the worst because you have now twisted everything that was written. You have no understanding of the two-sided equation. Nada.

I jumped through the hoops you placed in front of your second and third discoveries. Objectively you go to pains to hide them which is objectively suspicious. I stopped commenting on problems with things like your two-sided equation because it made you sulk.

I withheld judgement only to the extent that I told you about up front, and I was perfectly clear about not stipulating to the "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" that is at the heart of your two-sided equation because that bit is quite clearly utter gash. You were not lied to.

If it was utter gash, then explain it. You have to know what it is to call it utter gash.

Whenever detail is requested your panacea defies description for some reason. Not my fault.

Whoa, what detail has been requested? All you are doing is arguing, never once asking a relevant question. This tells me you played on me.

I am asking how your thing works to end mental illness. In your own words your claim was that "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." That deserves a bit of unpacking doesn't it?

Yes it does, but you have already concluded that mental illness under these changed conditions would result in the same mental illness that we see in a free will society of blame, punishment, and critical judgment.

It's a pretty big claim to try and explain as just "The way children are raised." There are no activities in your theory except thinking about determinism. How does thinking about determinism actually put an end to Borderline Personality Disorder or Schizoaffective disorder? Actually. Like how does this actually work?

First of all, it's not a theory. We don't have free will. Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

So don't lie to my face, I have asked relevant questions, the difficulty is working out what ones you are able to answer if you happen to be in the mood to try. That describes a population somewhere in the region zero.

You have asked not one question. I'll ask you: Explain the two-sided equation FlashDangerpants. Is that asking too much?

[FlashDangerpants]

Talk about a cult? This program that you call it removes any pressure to join any type of group that would define it as a cult. What is wrong with you FlashDangerpants. You deceived me into acting like you were being objective in your analysis. You are the worst because you have now twisted everything that was written. You have no understanding of the two-sided equation. Nada.

I jumped through the hoops you placed in front of your second and third discoveries. Objectively you go to pains to hide them which is objectively suspicious. I stopped commenting on problems with things like your two-sided equation because it made you sulk.

I withheld judgement only to the extent that I told you about up front, and I was perfectly clear about not stipulating to the "mathematical (undeniable) reasoning" that is at the heart of your two-sided equation because that bit is quite clearly utter gash. You were not lied to.

If it was utter gash, then explain it. You have to know what it is to call it utter gash.

Whoa, what detail has been requested? All you are doing is arguing, never once asking a relevant question. This tells me you played on me.

I am asking how your thing works to end mental illness. In your own words your claim was that "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." That deserves a bit of unpacking doesn't it?

Yes it does, but you have already concluded that mental illness under these changed conditions would result in the same mental illness that we see in a free will society of blame, punishment, and critical judgment.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't that be the default expectation? Nevermind, let's see if your evidence to the contrary amounts to much shall we.....?

It's a pretty big claim to try and explain as just "The way children are raised." There are no activities in your theory except thinking about determinism. How does thinking about determinism actually put an end to Borderline Personality Disorder or Schizoaffective disorder? Actually. Like how does this actually work?

First of all, it's not a theory. We don't have free will.

According to your theory.

Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

That's not evidence to the contrary at all, it's just blind optimism. You told me that mental illness would be "virtually nonexistent" but you have nothing to justify that beyond your conviction that this thing you are selling is the perfect panacea so it must work out that way for some unknown reason.

Evidence: "Trust me bro".

So don't lie to my face, I have asked relevant questions, the difficulty is working out what ones you are able to answer if you happen to be in the mood to try. That describes a population somewhere in the region zero.

You have asked not one question. I'll ask you: Explain the two-sided equation FlashDangerpants. Is that asking too much?

What is the second discovery? I've asked you that a whole lot of times. What is it? Don't lie that I haven't asked you.

[peacegirl]

I jumped through the hoops you placed in front of your second and third discoveries. Objectively you go to pains to hide them which is objectively suspicious. I stopped commenting on problems with things like your two-sided equation because it made you sulk.



If it was utter gash, then explain it. You have to know what it is to call it utter gash.


I am asking how your thing works to end mental illness. In your own words your claim was that "In this kind of environment, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent." That deserves a bit of unpacking doesn't it?

Yes it does, but you have already concluded that mental illness under these changed conditions would result in the same mental illness that we see in a free will society of blame, punishment, and critical judgment.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't that be the default expectation? Nevermind, let's see if your evidence to the contrary amounts to much shall we.....?

It's a pretty big claim to try and explain as just "The way children are raised." There are no activities in your theory except thinking about determinism. How does thinking about determinism actually put an end to Borderline Personality Disorder or Schizoaffective disorder? Actually. Like how does this actually work?

First of all, it's not a theory. We don't have free will.

According to your theory.

Where is it a theory? That's what I mean when I say you understood nothing.

Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

That's not evidence to the contrary at all, it's just blind optimism. You told me that mental illness would be "virtually nonexistent" but you have nothing to justify that beyond your conviction that this thing you are selling is the perfect panacea so it must work out that way for some unknown reason.

Evidence: "Trust me bro".

Mental illness generally comes from interaction with the environment. People are not born mentally ill. They may have predispositions to mental illness depending on triggers from the environment. It really depends how you define mental illness.

So don't lie to my face, I have asked relevant questions, the difficulty is working out what ones you are able to answer if you happen to be in the mood to try. That describes a population somewhere in the region zero.

You have asked not one question. I'll ask you: Explain the two-sided equation FlashDangerpants. Is that asking too much?

What is the second discovery? I've asked you that a whole lot of times. What is it? Don't lie that I haven't asked you.

I changed my mind. I'm not skipping over his first discovery when you have not asked a relevant question in earnest. Just by the fact that you call it a theory indicates to me that you did not understand why we don't have free will and why this knowledge, when we extend the corollary, leads to a world of peace and brotherhood. Children will grow up completely different giving them no reason to rebel or exploit others.

In the next chapter, it will be shown why we have never treated our children with respect, and here lies the cause of all parental problems. As we extend our basic principle, we will see homes, once fraught with anger and rebellion, transformed into homes that are filled with peace, harmony, and the greatest familial love imaginable.

[FlashDangerpants]

In the next chapter, it will be shown why we have never treated our children with respect, and here lies the cause of all parental problems. As we extend our basic principle, we will see homes, once fraught with anger and rebellion, transformed into homes that are filled with peace, harmony, and the greatest familial love imaginable.

That sounds like useful knowledge, please share it.

[Gary Childress]

Have you tried using infomercials to spread the word of your "new" discovery? There are tons of weight loss pitches on YouTube. Maybe in addition to all the accolades you ought to receive, you ought to monetize it?

[peacegirl]

Have you tried using infomercials to spread the word of your "new" discovery? There are tons of weight loss pitches on YouTube. Maybe in addition to all the accolades you ought to receive, you ought to monetize it?

Gary, paleeaaaassseeee STOP! This is not a self-help infomercial. This is a true discovery. This makes me very sad.

[peacegirl]

In the next chapter, it will be shown why we have never treated our children with respect, and here lies the cause of all parental problems. As we extend our basic principle, we will see homes, once fraught with anger and rebellion, transformed into homes that are filled with peace, harmony, and the greatest familial love imaginable.

That sounds like useful knowledge, please share it.

It's all useful knowledge. I will just give you a few paragraphs. You'll just have to invest $1.95 to buy the book. If people think I'm making money, they're out of their cotton pickin minds.

CHAPTER NINE

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I will begin this chapter with a question: “Is there a way to bring up a child in the new world so the parents will never have a problem? We must first define the word “problem” as we did earlier because, in reality, there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner. As long as we believe that man’s will is free and our only solution is blame and punishment, we will not be able to raise our children in the best possible environment. Nobody would think of blaming a baby for being born, but shortly thereafter the parents and society will blame and punish this child for not acting as he should. Society judges what is right and wrong and then holds man responsible to these standards. Just as long as there is this safety valve of blame and punishment, society is permitted to strike the first blow of injustice with impunity.

Many years ago, the philosopher Plato dreamed of Utopia, but the only manner in which he thought this could be accomplished was by removing the children from their parents at birth to prevent the passing along of ignorance from generation to generation. He began with a gigantic assumption that his men of Gold — he and others like him who received the necessary education and had the ability to pass through the necessary steps — had already possession of what the end result should be and only needed the means to this end, such as a system to develop these men of Gold, who would then remove the children from their parents for the purpose of controlling the environment, completely controlling what these little ones would experience. It never dawned on Plato and other philosophers that it was mathematically impossible for them to see the end result, for this included the removal of themselves and their ideas, which were constantly judging what was right for others. But what made matters still worse (not in reality, of course, since everything was necessary), what made matters more difficult to straighten out, was the fact these men of Gold justified the veracity of their wisdom by calling themselves men of Gold.

At every turn, I have observed individuals (perhaps you are one) who believe they are more qualified to teach what is right and wrong because of some fallacious standard that justifies the thought by its logic. The other day, I happened to hear someone criticize a journalist for his ridiculous column on the rearing of children. To justify the criticism, it was revealed that this writer never even had a college education. What this means is that the worst kind of ignorance imaginable, the kind that really doesn’t know, only thinks it knows, is permitted to conceal itself in a logical relation which justifies its existence by assuming that the end result, as perceived by someone who has become a man of Gold, so to speak, is more valid. But the great humor lies in the fact that the end result where children are concerned has long been established in today’s thinking, and where it differs is not in what a child should become or develop into but the best manner in which to accomplish this, which is exactly the thinking of Plato. In other words, you do not question the necessity of an education, but what is the best manner in which to get children to want it. You do not question the necessity of teaching your children the difference between right and wrong — but differ quite a bit on how to get children to obey what you think is right. What you know is better for your child is already taken for granted right from birth, which thoughts are contained in the words and air you breathe.

Don’t smile and think of someone to whom this applies, because everybody on earth who is a parent is innocently guilty. The only difference is that a teacher will justify what is taught by assuming that his knowledge is reliable, whereas others will justify what they say by quoting the teacher, some writer, doctor, priest, etc. One mother, in answer to my question as to what made her so certain she was teaching her children the right things, replied, “A child psychologist told me, and he’s a very brilliant man.” Another answered — her minister knows the difference between right and wrong and gave her explicit instructions directly from God. In every case, even when nothing but your own common sense is employed, there are hidden standards that justify the thought, although they are completely fallacious, yet they guide your every move. The rabbi was able to criticize the journalist because the standard he employed made him feel superior, but what would have happened if the same standard only revealed that he was misinformed, and that he really didn’t know? Would he have desired to reveal this to his congregation? No child likes to have his toys taken away, but if he is hurting others, then something must be done. Though they and others will be dissatisfied to learn the truth when it deprives them of such tremendous satisfaction, they are compelled to be silent because to utter any words in protest would only reveal their great ignorance, which can give them absolutely no satisfaction… giving them no choice. However, just to announce that man’s will is not free is not sufficient to make these experts — those who are constantly judging what is right for others — give up what they believe to be true. How was it possible for Plato to give up the notion that he was wrong when he saw that he was right? It always is this taking for granted that the end is true … that which you think is true. Even a person like the philosopher Will Durant takes for granted certain truths in bringing up a child, and what he considers wisdom makes no reference to any change in the end itself but only to certain techniques in the means to accomplish this end. He believes that certain foods are more wholesome than others, that a child of ten should be in bed at an early hour, and, consequently, considers it wisdom if he can get his child to eat what he thinks is better, get her in bed at an hour that he thinks is better, play the kind of instrument and music he thinks is better, etc. A person like Durant does more harm to a child because of his successful means than a father who fails with his invectives and commands. Let us follow this philosopher for a while as a basis to demonstrate the source of this unconscious ignorance.

[FlashDangerpants]

I miss half the stuff you write because of your inability to use the quote tags.

Yes it does, but you have already concluded that mental illness under these changed conditions would result in the same mental illness that we see in a free will society of blame, punishment, and critical judgment.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't that be the default expectation? Nevermind, let's see if your evidence to the contrary amounts to much shall we.....?

First of all, it's not a theory. We don't have free will.

According to your theory.

Where is it a theory? That's what I mean when I say you understood nothing.

The nerve of you. General relativity and evolution are theories, the notion that this crap you are waving around is too good to be on such a low level as those is laughable.

Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

That's not evidence to the contrary at all, it's just blind optimism. You told me that mental illness would be "virtually nonexistent" but you have nothing to justify that beyond your conviction that this thing you are selling is the perfect panacea so it must work out that way for some unknown reason.

Evidence: "Trust me bro".

Mental illness generally comes from interaction with the environment. People are not born mentally ill. They may have predispositions to mental illness depending on triggers from the environment. It really depends how you define mental illness.

Well that's not an answer is it? Gary Childress has a brain chemistry issue that results in him suffering crippling bouts of depression and anxiety on good days and psychotic breaks that result in hospitalisation on bad days. Can you fix that by making him think long and hard about determinism? If so, more detail please.

CHAPTER NINE

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I will begin this chapter with a question: “Is there a way to bring up a child in the new world so the parents will never have a problem? We must first define the word “problem” as we did earlier because, in reality, there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner.

Is that true? It doesn't seem true to me. You think it's a problem when I call you a wannabe cult leader, you would feel doubly emproblemated if I told you that a philosophy cult strikes even me as boring and all your customers should join a fun times sex cult instead. Your injury is purely imaginary though.

[peacegirl]

I miss half the stuff you write because of your inability to use the quote tags.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't that be the default expectation? Nevermind, let's see if your evidence to the contrary amounts to much shall we.....?

Where is it a theory? That's what I mean when I say you understood nothing.

The nerve of you. General relativity and evolution are theories, the notion that this crap you are waving around is too good to be on such a low level as those is laughable.

There are very few things that are factual in science, which makes it difficult because when words are used like opinion, theory, conjecture, or hypothesis, you are in a realm that wants to argue. Look, people can say it's their opinion that one plus one is two, because they believe that it's three. Where is the line drawn between fact and theory? If you believe there is no fact anywhere, then I don't know what to say. You will deny anything he writes because of his claim that determinism is not a theory.

Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

That's not evidence to the contrary at all, it's just blind optimism. You told me that mental illness would be "virtually nonexistent" but you have nothing to justify that beyond your conviction that this thing you are selling is the perfect panacea so it must work out that way for some unknown reason.

Evidence: "Trust me bro".

Mental illness generally comes from interaction with the environment. People are not born mentally ill. They may have predispositions to mental illness depending on triggers from the environment. It really depends how you define mental illness.

Well that's not an answer is it? Gary Childress has a brain chemistry issue that results in him suffering crippling bouts of depression and anxiety on good days and psychotic breaks that result in hospitalisation on bad days. Can you fix that by making him think long and hard about determinism? If so, more detail please.

I'm sorry to hear that you are suffering Gary. Flash, it's about understanding what in the environment may have led to these crippling bouts of depression and anxiety starting in our formative years and the messages we receive. Again, you are premature to ask "can you fix that by just thinking long and hard about determinism?" It actually could help to a degree if one realizes that he is not to blame for anything that has happened in his life, which may help him to let go of the past and have the strength to forgive others and, more importantly, himself. Moreover, his second discovery, proves that no one is superior or inferior to anyone else. Many people have feelings of inferiority that will go by the wayside once words that don't reflect the truth, become obsolete. You will hate this discovery because he demonstrates why the eyes are not a sense organ. I'm not getting into it.

CHAPTER NINE

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I will begin this chapter with a question: “Is there a way to bring up a child in the new world so the parents will never have a problem? We must first define the word “problem” as we did earlier because, in reality, there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner.

Is that true? It doesn't seem true to me. You think it's a problem when I call you a wannabe cult leader, you would feel doubly emproblemated if I told you that a philosophy cult strikes even me as boring and all your customers should join a fun times sex cult instead. Your injury is purely imaginary though.

Again, you misunderstood what he meant. If you had read the chapter (which you didn't), you would have realized your mistake. Cults hurt people; they are not imaginary.

[FlashDangerpants]

I miss half the stuff you write because of your inability to use the quote tags.

The nerve of you. General relativity and evolution are theories, the notion that this crap you are waving around is too good to be on such a low level as those is laughable.

There are very few things that are factual in science, which makes it difficult because when words are used like opinion, theory, conjecture, or hypothesis, you are in a realm that wants to argue. Look, people can say it's their opinion that one plus one is two, because they believe that it's three. Where is the line drawn between fact and theory? If you believe there is no fact anywhere, then I don't know what to say. You will deny anything he writes because of his claim that determinism is not a theory.

It is a theory, your opinion that it extends beyond that is evidence of nothing. That other stuff you wrote there about facts indicates that you are entirely unfamiliar with philosophy, something which lines up with your previous claims about "the philosophers" not understanding things.

Your dad thought he had a mathematical proof of determinism, all I see is a poor argument that takes a tautology and miscasts it as the result of a prediction evben though like all tautologies it is true by definition not observation. You meanwhile insist that understanding and agreeing are the same thing, your mind is closed to the prospect of your dad not being perfect. That's sort of sweet I suppose, but not my problem.

Your responses are based on misunderstanding. All of these labels such as borderline personality disorder and schizoaffective disorder come from the culture we live in. Nothing tells us these conditions are 100% genetic and right now there is no way to know if the environment plays a crucial role in these disorders. I'm not saying that every single mental illness would disappear once the transition begins. The only way to know what is environmentally driven is when a new generation is born into the new world where there is no judgment, no blame, and no hurt to people that don't conform to society's standards. You did not see how this knowledge extends into the raising of children, and how different it will be. You are the type that has no patience. You just want to confirm your worldview at the cost of anything that may challenge it.

That's not evidence to the contrary at all, it's just blind optimism. You told me that mental illness would be "virtually nonexistent" but you have nothing to justify that beyond your conviction that this thing you are selling is the perfect panacea so it must work out that way for some unknown reason.

Evidence: "Trust me bro".

Mental illness generally comes from interaction with the environment. People are not born mentally ill. They may have predispositions to mental illness depending on triggers from the environment. It really depends how you define mental illness.

Well that's not an answer is it? Gary Childress has a brain chemistry issue that results in him suffering crippling bouts of depression and anxiety on good days and psychotic breaks that result in hospitalisation on bad days. Can you fix that by making him think long and hard about determinism? If so, more detail please.

I'm sorry to hear that you are suffering Gary. Flash, it's about understanding what in the environment may have led to these crippling bouts of depression and anxiety starting in our formative years and the messages we receive. Again, you are premature to ask "can you fix that by just thinking long and hard about determinism?" It actually could help to a degree if one realizes that he is not to blame for anything that has happened in his life, which may help him to let go of the past and have the strength to forgive others and, more importantly, himself. Moreover, his second discovery, proves that no one is superior or inferior to anyone else. Many people have feelings of inferiority that will go by the wayside once words that don't reflect the truth, become obsolete. You will hate this discovery because he demonstrates why the eyes are not a sense organ. I'm not getting into it.

And what will your theory offer to help with the psychosis? You said that mental illness will go away, but suddenly you are so washy washy. The big talk completely fails you when you have to explain it. You seem to be just winging this thing really, making it up as you go along and trying to obscure your wild hyperbole on the fly. I say 'seem' there, I don't know why, that is exactly what you are doing.

CHAPTER NINE

PARENTS AND CHILDREN

I will begin this chapter with a question: “Is there a way to bring up a child in the new world so the parents will never have a problem? We must first define the word “problem” as we did earlier because, in reality, there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner.

Is that true? It doesn't seem true to me. You think it's a problem when I call you a wannabe cult leader, you would feel doubly emproblemated if I told you that a philosophy cult strikes even me as boring and all your customers should join a fun times sex cult instead. Your injury is purely imaginary though.

Again, you misunderstood what he meant. If you had read the chapter (which you didn't), you would have realized your mistake. Cults hurt people; they are not imaginary.

So he didn't mean " there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner"? Those don't look like particularly mystical words. Your feelings get hurt very easily, your suffering is imaginary - much more so than Gary's.

[peacegirl]

I miss half the stuff you write because of your inability to use the quote tags.

The nerve of you. General relativity and evolution are theories, the notion that this crap you are waving around is too good to be on such a low level as those is laughable.

There are very few things that are factual in science, which makes it difficult because when words are used like opinion, theory, conjecture, or hypothesis, you are in a realm that wants to argue. Look, people can say it's their opinion that one plus one is two, because they believe that it's three. Where is the line drawn between fact and theory? If you believe there is no fact anywhere, then I don't know what to say. You will deny anything he writes because of his claim that determinism is not a theory.

It is a theory, your opinion that it extends beyond that is evidence of nothing. That other stuff you wrote there about facts indicates that you are entirely unfamiliar with philosophy, something which lines up with your previous claims about "the philosophers" not understanding things.

You’re a philosopher and you’re not understanding things, not that you can’t, but that you are taking umbrage at him for no reason.

Your dad thought he had a mathematical proof of determinism, all I see is a poor argument that takes a tautology and miscasts it as the result of a prediction evben though like all tautologies it is true by definition not observation.

You can’t observe determinism directly. Yes, whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That doesn’t make it a poor argument. It is a fact that the past does not exist except in memory, therefore the past cannot cause. If you think the pasts exists other than in memory, you will reject his definition and there’s no point going forward.

You meanwhile insist that understanding and agreeing are the same thing, your mind is closed to the prospect of your dad not being perfect. That's sort of sweet I suppose, but not my problem.

I never said he was perfect.
If there is organic brain injury then a change in environment will not help. I am talking strictly about neuroses and depression caused by environmental factors and I stand by that.
So he didn't mean " there are no problems unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not imaginary, manner"? Those don't look like particularly mystical words. Your feelings get hurt very easily, your suffering is imaginary - much more so than Gary's.

Often people manipulate to try to elicit guilt by saying you hurt them in some way when you did nothing to hurt them at all. It’s an effort to get you to do what they want. Please stop reading into stuff.