New Discovery

[peacegirl]

You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it.

Don't speak for other people. If you think it's 3rd rate shit, then why are you here? You can leave; the door is open.

If you weren't speaing for other people when you wrote "All I can think of as to why this reaction is so negative is because people have been disappointed so many times that they don't want to be suckers, so they try to get you before you get them" then I wasn't when I wrote "You should think of a second explanation for why reaction is negative: You are hype-selling obvious 3rd rate shit, and nobody wants it." in response. The alternative is that we both spoke for other people.

Please try to be less of a hypocrite.

I have not spoken for other people. They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated. You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows. I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct. This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have not spoken for other people. They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

You have no basis for that except animus. There's nothing more untowards in what I actually wrote than in what you did. Please don't bother trying to turn things personal on me, I don't care about you enough to put effort into that.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows.

Same applies to trying to use my ego against me. Don't waste your effort, I am not influential and I don't let that worry me very much.

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

[peacegirl]

The way you have dismissed his reasoning as to why man's will is not free is disturbing. You have no idea what you're talking about because you don't understand that it's much more than a "repetitive" and "pointless" tautology. I have no desire to share anything else with you unless you give this man a chance, which you have not.

Tautologies are self contained truths, analytic and a priori, they don't unpack to provide extra knowledge. I am sorry that you don't understand the basic philosophy I am pointing to... but you have been doing this thing for decades now, fooling yourself that you know what "the philosophers" argue, so I maintain that it is your fault that you aren't better at this by now.

You're still not getting it. Much more important than just calling it a tautology and being pointless because there's nothing more to be said, bear in mind that even though whatever you choose is tautological, the point being made here is that "you could not have chosen otherwise", which free will denies. Free will says this person didn't have to shoot the bank teller. He had the free will to do otherwise. This is a central aspect of the discussion, and I have been unable to get you to understand let alone listen.

Please explain in your own words, without copy and pasting any copyright materials, how you think this Lessans argument to establish unfree will actually works. Perhaps restatement in alternative terms can show what it is that you think is so good about it.

No. All I ask is that you read the first three chapters. It's free FlashDangerpants. That's how it's usually done. People read first and then have a discussion.

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:s ... 10208355d4

[peacegirl]

I have not spoken for other people. They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

You have no basis for that except animus. There's nothing more untowards in what I actually wrote than in what you did. Please don't bother trying to turn things personal on me, I don't care about you enough to put effort into that.

If I did the same thing as you, sorry. This is so off track that it is simply a distraction.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows.

Same applies to trying to use my ego against me. Don't waste your effort, I am not influential and I don't let that worry me very much.

Fair enough.

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps. I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[FlashDangerpants]

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps. I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

What a pathetic cop out. You have spent decades promoting this work. Decades telling everyone it's the best and they are to blame if they somehow don't see it the same way you do. But you are too still not able to help anyone to come to an understanding? You have nothing to add, just something to sell?

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

[Atla]

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows. I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct. This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

Ah, now I understand. If only we didn't follow FDP, we'd have world peace by now. I was blind for so long, but now I can see.

That's some next level blaming right there. Let's call it uberblaming.

[FlashDangerpants]

Get back in my pocket Atla, I haven't told you what to say yet!

[Atla]

Get back in my pocket Atla, I haven't told you what to say yet!

Yes sir! I'm sorry.

[peacegirl]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

[quote="Atla"[Just what makes you think that blame arose with the belief in free will? Can you prove that like a 'scientist'? Even cats will hold grudges, blaming you for stuff you did to them. Cats have no philosophical degrees, probably not even self-awareness.

I didn't say blame arose with the belief in free will. I said that the belief in free will was necessary to justify punishment, especially in a court of law. Their thinking goes something like this: "This person didn't have to do what he did; he did it of his own free will and now he's going to pay the price."

And you can't call me completely wrong because you have a BELIEF in how exactly your utopia would work. Your certainty about a very different world that doesn't yet exist is telling.

This has nothing to do with the correctness of his equation. How can we create this kind of world without studying the principles that will get us there? If his premises are wrong, I would concede, but I don't think they're wrong.

And no we don't even stop criminals using blame, but rather using the justice system. It doesn't even need free will for justification you don't understand basic things.

If the criminal justice system believed a person shot up a school because he had a brain tumor, they would think differently than if they thought he was free to choose not to shoot up the school. I'm not saying that in this society, we should not blame and punish. There are many things that have to change in the environment before we could even begin to transition to a different way of life.

[Eodnhoj7]

Justice is the interpretation of how we value what reality should be, it is nothing more than a distinction that gives way to cause and effect. There is no universal justice outside of the effects of an action thus reality becomes a process of transforming patterns of thought.

[peacegirl]

The book is peacegirl's religion. But in the real world, not blaming people won't stop them from committing crimes, it will compel them to commit more crimes. That's why it's against human nature to not blame people. Everyone knows this who has been around people which peacegirl clearly hasn't. Determinism or not doesn't change anything. We evolved blame in a deterministic world after all.

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

Blaming human beings for what they do never necessarily follows that 'that' is 'the way' to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. If one, for example, is intent on obtaining more money, then what would make 'that one' stop doing that in absolutely 'any way', if 'that one' was not blamed when it was doing what is Wrong, in Life?

Yes, blaming is a partial deterrent and is used to stop people from hurting others. But it doesn't stop the people who don't care about these threats of punishment and are willing to risk going to jail for the satisfaction of getting what they want.

[peacegirl]

I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct.

Well that's just weird. Try having better arguments. Or actually dealing with other people's objections instead of trying to dismiss us all as mean spirited and closed minded oafs.

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps. I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

What a pathetic cop out. You have spent decades promoting this work. Decades telling everyone it's the best and they are to blame if they somehow don't see it the same way you do. But you are too still not able to help anyone to come to an understanding? You have nothing to add, just something to sell?

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness and strength is different.

[Atla]

I didn't say blame arose with the belief in free will. I said that the belief in free will was necessary to justify punishment, especially in a court of law. Their thinking goes something like this: "This person didn't have to do what he did; he did it of his own free will and now he's going to pay the price."

That's not true, that justification works without free will as well. You're simply not telling the truth when you say that belief in free will is necessary for that.

This has nothing to do with the correctness of his equation. How can we create this kind of world without studying the principles that will get us there? If his premises are wrong, I would concede, but I don't think they're wrong.

I listed at least 6 of his premises that are wrong.

If the criminal justice system believed a person shot up a school because he had a brain tumor, they would think differently than if they thought he was free to choose not to shoot up the school. I'm not saying that in this society, we should not blame and punish. There are many things that have to change in the environment before we could even begin to transition to a different way of life.

But that's already the practice. People get treated differently when they are seen as insane. So it's acknowledged that they had no free will to freely will themselves out of insanity.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps. I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

What a pathetic cop out. You have spent decades promoting this work. Decades telling everyone it's the best and they are to blame if they somehow don't see it the same way you do. But you are too still not able to help anyone to come to an understanding? You have nothing to add, just something to sell?

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

And all you have done is wring your weak little hands.

If I understand something, I can put it into other words, because that's sort of how it works to understand things. If you can only repeat the original text, you are missing something yourself. You bring nothing to the table, you present no additional context, you don't help anyone to make whatever leap of understanding they are missing. You are a passenger.

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

[peacegirl]

What a pathetic cop out. You have spent decades promoting this work. Decades telling everyone it's the best and they are to blame if they somehow don't see it the same way you do. But you are too still not able to help anyone to come to an understanding? You have nothing to add, just something to sell?

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

And all you have done is wring your weak little hands.

If I understand something, I can put it into other words, because that's sort of how it works to understand things. If you can only repeat the original text, you are missing something yourself. You bring nothing to the table, you present no additional context, you don't help anyone to make whatever leap of understanding they are missing. You are a passenger.

You're completely off the mark. I do understand things. I even added some examples of my own.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it refers to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to show how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.



You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

I really don't get the resentment. I came to share something important, which you all won't allow yourselves to read. It's really sad.