New Discovery

[Atla]

I really don't know where you think you proved him wrong other than that one example. I am not lying or feigning ignorance. This is getting stupid. Explain yourself or move on.

There are so many things wrong with what you say, I don't even know where to begin. Maybe here: you deliberately lie about what proof even means, just like your father did. Neither your father nor I can give absolute proof by telling a story. You have investment in it. Is that because of a complex?

If you had even cared to understand, you would have known how each step of his proof was as clear as day. Saying this was a story is laughable. Of course I'm invested in it but not because he was my father. You are convinced in your disbelief (and that's all it is) that he couldn't have made a discovery of this magnitude. But telling me that I have a daddy complex or I'm out for money is a waste of my time. Unless you can pinpoint where you think he was wrong, we're done. Your belief that humans need to be genetically engineered in order to change humanity is really scary stuff. Talk about playing God.

Stop lying about what proof even means. Even a child would understand after reading the first chapter that your father hasn't proven his claim. You know this, so are you out for money or is it some kind of complex?

[peacegirl]

There are so many things wrong with what you say, I don't even know where to begin. Maybe here: you deliberately lie about what proof even means, just like your father did. Neither your father nor I can give absolute proof by telling a story. You have investment in it. Is that because of a complex?

If you had even cared to understand, you would have known how each step of his proof was as clear as day. Saying this was a story is laughable. Of course I'm invested in it but not because he was my father. You are convinced in your disbelief (and that's all it is) that he couldn't have made a discovery of this magnitude. But telling me that I have a daddy complex or I'm out for money is a waste of my time. Unless you can pinpoint where you think he was wrong, we're done. Your belief that humans need to be genetically engineered in order to change humanity is really scary stuff. Talk about playing God.

Stop lying about what proof even means. Even a child would understand after reading the first chapter that your father hasn't proven his claim. You know this, so are you out for money or is it some kind of complex?

We're done Atla. Sorry.

[Atla]

If you had even cared to understand, you would have known how each step of his proof was as clear as day. Saying this was a story is laughable. Of course I'm invested in it but not because he was my father. You are convinced in your disbelief (and that's all it is) that he couldn't have made a discovery of this magnitude. But telling me that I have a daddy complex or I'm out for money is a waste of my time. Unless you can pinpoint where you think he was wrong, we're done. Your belief that humans need to be genetically engineered in order to change humanity is really scary stuff. Talk about playing God.

Stop lying about what proof even means. Even a child would understand after reading the first chapter that your father hasn't proven his claim. You know this, so are you out for money or is it some kind of complex?

We're done Atla. Sorry.

Done, or really done, or really REALLY really done this time?

Anyway, you've known for decades that your father's neat conversations in the first chapter, where he keeps pointing out that the other person was still acting on his/her maximum satisfaction, and then the other person has an absolute epiphany and falls down on his/her knees and sees a heavenly aura emanating from your father, well those conversation don't constitute actual proof. So why do you lie about that?

[peacegirl]

Stop lying about what proof even means. Even a child would understand after reading the first chapter that your father hasn't proven his claim. You know this, so are you out for money or is it some kind of complex?

We're done Atla. Sorry.

Done, or really done, or really REALLY really done this time?

What is with you today? You’ve never been this vocal? If all you do is tell me that he’s wrong without giving me examples to prove this, it is a clear indication that you aren’t sure.

Anyway, you've known for decades that your father's neat conversations in the first chapter, where he keeps pointing out that the other person was still acting on his/her maximum satisfaction, and then the other person has an absolute epiphany and falls down on his/her knees and sees a heavenly aura emanating from your father, well those conversation don't constitute actual proof. So why do you lie about that?

Put your money where your mouth is. Give me the page number where this is written.

[Atla]

We're done Atla. Sorry.

Done, or really done, or really REALLY really done this time?

What is with you today? You’ve never been this vocal? If all you do is tell me that he’s wrong without giving me examples to prove this, it is a clear indication that you aren’t sure.

Anyway, you've known for decades that your father's neat conversations in the first chapter, where he keeps pointing out that the other person was still acting on his/her maximum satisfaction, and then the other person has an absolute epiphany and falls down on his/her knees and sees a heavenly aura emanating from your father, well those conversation don't constitute actual proof. So why do you lie about that?

Put your money where your mouth is. Give me the page number where this is written.

See you can't stop defending all the lies that's why we're never 'done'. His second discovery was even more hilarious, only those who are dumb and uneducated could possibly fall for it.

Let's get to the point. Money or complex? Which complex?

[Belinda]

This has nothing to do with supernatural miracles. A person who needs red meat does not mean he feels entitled. It's a matter of survival. Some people cannot live on plants alone. I believe that I love animals just as much as you, if not more. Lessans' book persuades no one to do anything. It's not scientology or some kind of cult. It leaves each person's conscience to determine what is right and wrong, not you or me. P.S. If you've killed a fly, a roach, an ant, or a mosquito, then you're a hypocrite.

Make up your mind Peacegirl. You yourself endorsed miracles Either the change in human conduct will be miraculous or it won't be miraculous.

And as a matter of fact sales of vegan foods in UK have shown an upward trend. No miracle but ordinary human compassion for animals.

You yourself feel entitled to consume animal sourced products , and you justify this entitlement by saying it is natural for humans to eat animals. If Lessan's Utopian prophecy does materialise this would not because the change was natural ( or miraculous) but because of cultural change.

I am not a hypocrite concerning animal welfare; the fault is yours for all-or-nothing thinking.

[peacegirl]

Done, or really done, or really REALLY really done this time?



Anyway, you've known for decades that your father's neat conversations in the first chapter, where he keeps pointing out that the other person was still acting on his/her maximum satisfaction, and then the other person has an absolute epiphany and falls down on his/her knees and sees a heavenly aura emanating from your father, well those conversation don't constitute actual proof. So why do you lie about that?

See you can't stop defending all the lies that's why we're never 'done'. His second discovery was even more hilarious, only those who are dumb and uneducated could possibly fall for it.

Let's get to the point. Money or complex? Which complex?

Now you're just using this thread for lulz and it ain't gonna happen. Give me the page number Atla and show who the liar is?

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb. Oh well. A person who needs red meat does not mean he feels entitled. It's a matter of survival. Some people cannot live on plants alone. I believe that I love animals just as much as you, if not more. Lessans' book persuades no one to do anything. It's not scientology or some kind of cult. It leaves each person's conscience to determine what is right and wrong, not you or me. P.S. If you've killed a fly, a roach, an ant, or a mosquito, then you're a hypocrite.

Belinda: Make up your mind Peacegirl. You yourself endorsed miracles Either the change in human conduct will be miraculous or it won't be miraculous.

Peacegirl: What do you mean "supernatural miracles" or "endorsed miracles?" He never mentioned supernatural miracles at all. He only used the term "miracles" because of the amazing change in human relations that is now within our reach.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Belinda: And as a matter of fact sales of vegan foods in UK have shown an upward trend. No miracle but ordinary human compassion for animals.

You yourself feel entitled to consume animal sourced products , and you justify this entitlement by saying it is natural for humans to eat animals. If Lessan's Utopian prophecy does materialise this would not because the change was natural ( or miraculous) but because of cultural change.

Peacegirl: It has nothing to do with entitlement. I personally cannot eat only plant-based food. Everybody's blood and stamina are different. Some people need animal products to feel good, including red meat. Please stop judging me so harshly. He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved. Ultimately, when we live in a better world, animals will get the benefit, as I mentioned. People will never purposely neglect or hurt them. I doubt if we will ever have a world where people don't eat meat or chicken or fish. If you think people who do eat animal products are criminals, what can I say? Each person's conscience will be their guide.

Belinda: I am not a hypocrite concerning animal welfare; the fault is yours for all-or-nothing thinking.

Peacegirl: But you do admit that you will kill a flea or a roach or a fly. It is your conscience that tells you what line you will or won't cross, and that's fine, but you cannot tell others what their conscience should do or not do. Some people would get an abortion if they found that the fetus had an anomaly; some would not. That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. In the new world, there would be no reason to abuse animals for their tusks or horns or skins. And the cosmetic industry would no longer test their products on animals, which is already happening. There will be so many changes for the better, it's hard to even imagine, especially when people will have a guaranteed income and won't have to resort to these horrible practices to survive.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb. Oh well. A person who needs red meat does not mean he feels entitled. It's a matter of survival. Some people cannot live on plants alone. I believe that I love animals just as much as you, if not more. Lessans' book persuades no one to do anything. It's not scientology or some kind of cult. It leaves each person's conscience to determine what is right and wrong, not you or me. P.S. If you've killed a fly, a roach, an ant, or a mosquito, then you're a hypocrite.

Belinda: Make up your mind Peacegirl. You yourself endorsed miracles Either the change in human conduct will be miraculous or it won't be miraculous.

Peacegirl: What do you mean "supernatural miracles" or "endorsed miracles?" He never mentioned supernatural miracles at all. He only used the term "miracles" because of the amazing change in human relations that is now within our reach.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Belinda: And as a matter of fact sales of vegan foods in UK have shown an upward trend. No miracle but ordinary human compassion for animals.

You yourself feel entitled to consume animal sourced products , and you justify this entitlement by saying it is natural for humans to eat animals. If Lessan's Utopian prophecy does materialise this would not because the change was natural ( or miraculous) but because of cultural change.

Peacegirl: It has nothing to do with entitlement. I personally cannot eat only plant-based food. Everybody's blood and stamina are different. Some people need animal products to feel good, including red meat. Please stop judging me so harshly. He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved. Ultimately, when we live in a better world, animals will get the benefit, as I mentioned. People will never purposely neglect or hurt them. I doubt if we will ever have a world where people don't eat meat or chicken or fish. If you think people who do eat animal products are criminals, what can I say? Each person's conscience will be their guide.

Belinda: I am not a hypocrite concerning animal welfare; the fault is yours for all-or-nothing thinking.

Peacegirl: But you do admit that you will kill a flea or a roach or a fly. It is your conscience that tells you what line you will or won't cross, and that's fine, but you cannot tell others what their conscience should do or not do. Some people would get an abortion if they found that the fetus had an anomaly; some would not. That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. In the new world, there would be no reason to abuse animals for their tusks or horns or skins. And the cosmetic industry would no longer test their products on animals, which is already happening. There will be so many changes for the better, it's hard to even imagine, especially when people will have a guaranteed income and won't have to resort to these horrible practices to survive.

Everyone has the right to conscience , opinions, and ideas. And I have a right to object to consciences, opinions, or ideas and to say why I object.

"That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. " I approve of your recognising that there are moral grey areas.
Concerning animal welfare at least IMO your heart is in the right place. And animal welfare is an excellent origin for a sound moral philosophy.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Interpretation is a gradient form of attention, by attention we make distinctions. To interpret reality is to make distinctions about it. Interpretation is a form of attention, a grade of it. Determinism is a distinction of attention, an interpretation. Determinism is a ghost story.

OF COURSE WE MAKE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT OUR REALITY. THIS IS WHERE OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS THE NEXT BEST MOVE, GIVEN OUR OPTIONS, COMES INTO PLAY.

2. If you have to tweak a book about determinism than it, ie determinism, is open to interpretation.

IF A DEFINITION DOES NOT REFLECT REALITY, YES, THE DEFINITION IS NOT ACCURATE, NOT DETERMINISM. NOR IS DETERMINISM OPEN TO INTERPRETATION WHEN THE DEFINITION IS ACCURATE.

3. The Buddhists have the deepest of all desires, the desire to have no desire. They contradict themselves by evidence of their practices.

THAT'S NOT WHY I BROUGHT BHUDDISM UP. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO TRY TO MINIMIZE THEIR DESIRES BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT CAUSES SUFFERING. IN TRYING TO MINIMIZE THEIR DESIRES (WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED THIS DISCOVERY IS ALL ABOUT), THEY ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

4. You are trying to improve people by reorienting their perspectives. The reorientation of perspective applies to how they deal with all experiences, the deepest experience being that of "self"...the logical end of your assertions is self-improvement founded on change in perspective.

YA, THIS KNOWLEDGE BRINGS A CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE BY THE REALIZATION THAT THREATS OF BLAME AND PUNISHMENT ARE ACTUALLY PERPETUATING THE VERY THING THESE THREATS ARE TRYING TO PREVENT. BUT THIS CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE, AS IT RELATES TO THIS DISCOVERY, IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL THING LIKE "SELF-IMPROVEMENT." IT IS A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT, ON A GLOBAL LEVEL, THAT WILL CHANGE HUMAN CONDUCT FOR THE BETTER.

1. And by make distinctions we necessitates an observer effect where the act of attention is an acausal cause, ie a point of awareness, quite literally a point, where the potential unfolds into the actual.

2. You cannot say determinism is not correct if the definition is not correct because a determinism without definition is no determinism at all for determinism at its root is purely definition by cause and effect.

3. Apparently they, the Buddhists, are not completely satisfied if they are always trying to minimalize them. To be more accurate, Buddhist try to erase desire, hindus and taoists try to minimalize. The distinction is not necessary though in this context, it's more a a fun distinction of nuances in practices.

4. Determinism is karma for both are cause and effect. Punishment is self-inflicted, but inevitable and by being inevitable is necessary for free will to occur. Without effects people cannot make choices of sacrifice, either to light or dark.

I hate to break it to you, and what I am about about to say not only appears dark but is actually very dark, but the truth is some people want hell. Some people love the darkness, the pain, the fear, the madness of existence. If you don't believe me then you can look at the thread for a cheap vantage point of the scenario...or you can just look at existence itself and the experience of it.

The reality is "things just are"...for better...or for worse
... or for both... or for neither.

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb. Oh well. A person who needs red meat does not mean he feels entitled. It's a matter of survival. Some people cannot live on plants alone. I believe that I love animals just as much as you, if not more. Lessans' book persuades no one to do anything. It's not scientology or some kind of cult. It leaves each person's conscience to determine what is right and wrong, not you or me. P.S. If you've killed a fly, a roach, an ant, or a mosquito, then you're a hypocrite.

Belinda: Make up your mind Peacegirl. You yourself endorsed miracles Either the change in human conduct will be miraculous or it won't be miraculous.

Peacegirl: What do you mean "supernatural miracles" or "endorsed miracles?" He never mentioned supernatural miracles at all. He only used the term "miracles" because of the amazing change in human relations that is now within our reach.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Belinda: And as a matter of fact sales of vegan foods in UK have shown an upward trend. No miracle but ordinary human compassion for animals.

You yourself feel entitled to consume animal sourced products , and you justify this entitlement by saying it is natural for humans to eat animals. If Lessan's Utopian prophecy does materialise this would not because the change was natural ( or miraculous) but because of cultural change.

Peacegirl: It has nothing to do with entitlement. I personally cannot eat only plant-based food. Everybody's blood and stamina are different. Some people need animal products to feel good, including red meat. Please stop judging me so harshly. He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved. Ultimately, when we live in a better world, animals will get the benefit, as I mentioned. People will never purposely neglect or hurt them. I doubt if we will ever have a world where people don't eat meat or chicken or fish. If you think people who do eat animal products are criminals, what can I say? Each person's conscience will be their guide.

Belinda: I am not a hypocrite concerning animal welfare; the fault is yours for all-or-nothing thinking.

Peacegirl: But you do admit that you will kill a flea or a roach or a fly. It is your conscience that tells you what line you will or won't cross, and that's fine, but you cannot tell others what their conscience should do or not do. Some people would get an abortion if they found that the fetus had an anomaly; some would not. That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. In the new world, there would be no reason to abuse animals for their tusks or horns or skins. And the cosmetic industry would no longer test their products on animals, which is already happening. There will be so many changes for the better, it's hard to even imagine, especially when people will have a guaranteed income and won't have to resort to these horrible practices to survive.

Everyone has the right to conscience , opinions, and ideas. And I have a right to object to consciences, opinions, or ideas and to say why I object.

Of course you do, who is saying otherwise? But when you say that you have the right to conscience, I think you're using the word in a different way than I am. If a person cannot justify his actions in some way, his conscience won't allow him to act on whatever he is contemplating. That's how our conscience works and there is no way we can get around it. This is not a theory.

To hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction, which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself, which is a condition of free will and a part of the present environment, permits the consideration of hurt, for it is the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires, but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way.

"That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. " I approve of your recognising that there are moral grey areas.
Concerning animal welfare at least IMO your heart is in the right place. And animal welfare is an excellent origin for a sound moral philosophy.

I know my heart is in the right place. I love animals and would do anything to help them. As far as certain gray areas, of course there are some areas that are not clearcut and therefore the wiggle room depends on the convictions of the person making that decision. To hurt another human being with a first blow that is unprovoked is a horse of another color. Knowing IN ADVANCE that you are causing harm to someone without any justification, and also knowing the person you are about to hurt will be compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction, prevents your conscience from permitting said action.

[Atla]

See you can't stop defending all the lies that's why we're never 'done'. His second discovery was even more hilarious, only those who are dumb and uneducated could possibly fall for it.

Let's get to the point. Money or complex? Which complex?

Now you're just using this thread for lulz and it ain't gonna happen. Give me the page number Atla and show who the liar is?

Why do you need page numbers now (43-57), are you denying that your father claims to give mathematical proof, but the proof's most important part where he shows God's law is just chit-chat with real or imagined people? That's what you and the book are on about. You're weird. Weak attempt at deflection.

[Belinda]

Peacegirl: I'm not sure why the thread doesn't show when I click on the quotation, so I'm doing it this way. I know FlashDangerpants will call me dumb. Oh well. A person who needs red meat does not mean he feels entitled. It's a matter of survival. Some people cannot live on plants alone. I believe that I love animals just as much as you, if not more. Lessans' book persuades no one to do anything. It's not scientology or some kind of cult. It leaves each person's conscience to determine what is right and wrong, not you or me. P.S. If you've killed a fly, a roach, an ant, or a mosquito, then you're a hypocrite.

Belinda: Make up your mind Peacegirl. You yourself endorsed miracles Either the change in human conduct will be miraculous or it won't be miraculous.

Peacegirl: What do you mean "supernatural miracles" or "endorsed miracles?" He never mentioned supernatural miracles at all. He only used the term "miracles" because of the amazing change in human relations that is now within our reach.

This natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the development of our present age was required to find it. By discovering this well-concealed law and demonstrating its power, a catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing what will be called miracles, though they do not transcend the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes and all the other evils of human relations is going to veer so sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible.

Belinda: And as a matter of fact sales of vegan foods in UK have shown an upward trend. No miracle but ordinary human compassion for animals.

You yourself feel entitled to consume animal sourced products , and you justify this entitlement by saying it is natural for humans to eat animals. If Lessan's Utopian prophecy does materialise this would not because the change was natural ( or miraculous) but because of cultural change.

Peacegirl: It has nothing to do with entitlement. I personally cannot eat only plant-based food. Everybody's blood and stamina are different. Some people need animal products to feel good, including red meat. Please stop judging me so harshly. He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved. Ultimately, when we live in a better world, animals will get the benefit, as I mentioned. People will never purposely neglect or hurt them. I doubt if we will ever have a world where people don't eat meat or chicken or fish. If you think people who do eat animal products are criminals, what can I say? Each person's conscience will be their guide.

Belinda: I am not a hypocrite concerning animal welfare; the fault is yours for all-or-nothing thinking.

Peacegirl: But you do admit that you will kill a flea or a roach or a fly. It is your conscience that tells you what line you will or won't cross, and that's fine, but you cannot tell others what their conscience should do or not do. Some people would get an abortion if they found that the fetus had an anomaly; some would not. That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. In the new world, there would be no reason to abuse animals for their tusks or horns or skins. And the cosmetic industry would no longer test their products on animals, which is already happening. There will be so many changes for the better, it's hard to even imagine, especially when people will have a guaranteed income and won't have to resort to these horrible practices to survive.

Everyone has the right to conscience , opinions, and ideas. And I have a right to object to consciences, opinions, or ideas and to say why I object.

Of course you do, who is saying otherwise? But when you say that you have the right to conscience, I think you're using the word in a different way than I am. If a person cannot justify his actions in some way, his conscience won't allow him to act on whatever he is contemplating. That's how our conscience works and there is no way we can get around it. This is not a theory.

To hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction, which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this, that he was previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back ‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he hurt and others if they knew. Blame itself, which is a condition of free will and a part of the present environment, permits the consideration of hurt, for it is the price man is willing to pay for the satisfaction of certain desires, but when blame is removed so that the advance knowledge that it no longer exists becomes a new condition of the environment, then the price he must consider to strike the first blow of hurt is completely out of reach because he cannot find satisfaction in hurting those who will refuse to blame him or retaliate in any way.

"That's another gray area that belongs to the person having to make that choice. " I approve of your recognising that there are moral grey areas.
Concerning animal welfare at least IMO your heart is in the right place. And animal welfare is an excellent origin for a sound moral philosophy.

I know my heart is in the right place. I love animals and would do anything to help them. As far as certain gray areas, of course there are some areas that are not clearcut and therefore the wiggle room depends on the convictions of the person making that decision. To hurt another human being with a first blow that is unprovoked is a horse of another color. Knowing IN ADVANCE that you are causing harm to someone without any justification, and also knowing the person you are about to hurt will be compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction, prevents your conscience from permitting said action.

I too suspect we two use 'conscience' in different ways. For me, conscience is affective consciousness of, and loyalty to , guiding moral principles. I may disapprove or despise a specific guiding moral principle.

Peacegirl wrote:
"He never called this a utopia where the lions sleep with the lambs. This is a discovery regarding human relations, conscience, and moral responsibility. There are gray areas which will then be decided by the people involved."

Fair enough. If you who have read the book say so I believe you that that is what the author wrote. Moreover most people of goodwill would want and aim for such a society. The objection is that such a society is certain to happen.

The usage of 'miracle' that you say Lessans used is a common imprecise usage. An educated philosopher would like define 'miracle' as intentional intervention into history by God or gods.

[peacegirl]

1. And by make distinctions we necessitates an observer effect where the act of attention is an acausal cause, ie a point of awareness, quite literally a point, where the potential unfolds into the actual.

OKAY. SO WHERE DOES THIS ACAUSAL CAUSE REFUTE "GREATER SATISFACTION?" IT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS IT.

2. You cannot say determinism is not correct if the definition is not correct because a determinism without definition is no determinism at all for determinism at its root is purely definition by cause and effect.

IT IS NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT IN THE TYPICAL WAY WE THINK ABOUT A POOL BALL HITTING ANOTHER ONE AND GOING INTO THE POCKET. THAT IS CAUSE AND EFFECT. BUT HUMAN DECISION MAKING DOES NOT WORK IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. DETERMINISM, THE WAY ITS PRESENTLY DEFINED, SAYS: WE ARE CAUSED BY ANTECEDENT EVENTS TO DO WHAT WE DO. BUT HERE IS THE CONFUSION: NOTHING FROM THE PAST CAN CAUSE THE PRESENT. THIS IS PROBLEMATIC AND HAS CREATED GREAT CONFUSION. HOW CAN THE PAST CAUSE ANYTHING WHEN THE PAST DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT AS A MEMORY? THIS IS WHERE HE TWEAKED THE DEFINITION TO MAKE IT MORE ACCURATE.

3. Apparently they, the Buddhists, are not completely satisfied if they are always trying to minimalize them. To be more accurate, Buddhist try to erase desire, hindus and taoists try to minimalize. The distinction is not necessary though in this context, it's more a a fun distinction of nuances in practices.

YOU'RE RIGHT THAT REGARDLESS OF BECOMING MORE AND MORE ASCETIC, AND REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVATIONS TO HAVE FUN WITH NUANCES OR NOT, EVERYONE, INCLUDING BUDDHISTS ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT GIVES THEM GREATER SATISFACTION.

4. Determinism is karma for both are cause and effect. Punishment is self-inflicted, but inevitable and by being inevitable is necessary for free will to occur. Without effects people cannot make choices of sacrifice, either to light or dark.

I THINK YOU'RE REVERSING PUNISHMENT, BEING INEVITABLE AND NECESSARY FOR FREE WILL TO OCCUR, RATHER THAN FREE WILL BEING NECESSARY FOR PUNISHMENT TO OCCUR.

I hate to break it to you, and what I am about to say not only appears dark but is actually very dark, but the truth is some people want hell. Some people love the darkness, the pain, the fear, the madness of existence. If you don't believe me then you can look at the thread for a cheap vantage point of the scenario...or you can just look at existence itself and the experience of it.

I THINK SOME PEOPLE MAY LOVE DARKNESS AND WANT TO SPREAD IT IN ANY WAY THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY HATE THE WORLD AND WANT TO TAKE IT OUT ON EVERYONE. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INHERENTLY EVIL. THEY HAVE JUST LOST THEIR WAY BASED ON THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR GENETIC PREDISPOSITIONS.

The reality is "things just are"...for better...or for worse
... or for both... or for neither.

THAT SOUNDS FATALISTIC. i SAY: THINGS JUST ARE UNTIL THEY AREN'T.

[peacegirl]

See you can't stop defending all the lies that's why we're never 'done'. His second discovery was even more hilarious, only those who are dumb and uneducated could possibly fall for it.

Let's get to the point. Money or complex? Which complex?

Now you're just using this thread for lulz and it ain't gonna happen. Give me the page number Atla and show who the liar is?

Why do you need page numbers now (43-57), are you denying that your father claims to give mathematical proof, but the proof's most important part where he shows God's law is just chit-chat with real or imagined people? That's what you and the book are on about. You're weird. Weak attempt at deflection.

You are the one deflecting and you know it. Show me the exact page, not page numbers, where these things were mentioned, or is this just your interpretation? You know you can't do it because it's not there. You are lying Atla.