New Discovery

[peacegirl]

One does wonder about the real lives behind the various personas of this this online habitat. Why not interact only with the personas and leave the real actors alone?
You will eventually become inured to online insults, then you can better address the actual material.

I don’t like insults that take away from the purpose of a discussion. I’m pretty thick-skinned, but to me, it’s plain old bullying! People either habituate to this kind of environment, or they leave. I believe a lot of good conversations end too soon because of this.

I agree. Good conversations are positively aided by ordinary politeness.There is a third choice----one can opt to not receive posts from selected posters.
This platform as far as I know has no method of selecting only posters who are able philosophers and who seek to learn from discussions.
Having said what I said I am puzzled as to your motive for using this website.

I am puzzled also, now that I know what I do.

[Fairy]

I am not a child, and being called stupid does not bother me in the slightest.

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

It's very relevant actually, you adults were once a child, can you remember being a child, or have you no recognition of ever being a child, Belinda?

[peacegirl]

This video explains what I couldn’t. It does not negate this discovery at all. It explains the resistance to it.These forums are a form of socialization which become antagonistic to new ideas ironically because crowded rooms are not conducive to finding truth. It’s all about the loudest in the bunch. This shocks me coming from a philosophy forum that boasts on its unwavering intelligence.

https://youtu.be/Ory_2FG7oIU?si=cRjmWr6jD4briTSg

[FlashDangerpants]

Having said what I said I am puzzled as to your motive for using this website.

Do you see her in the political philosophy sub discussing things that aren't in the book she is selling in this thread?

Do you see her in the applied ethics sub, extending on the values she believes are to be found in this book she is selling in this thread, showing how all of its knowledge can be applied in your real life?

The mystery is not her motives, those are green and obvious. The mystery is her methods, or more accurately her persistence with methods which remain unchanged after decades of awful results.

She doesn't like the explanation for that last thing though and will spend pages whining if her attention is drawn to it.

[peacegirl]

Having said what I said I am puzzled as to your motive for using this website.

Do you see her in the political philosophy sub discussing things that aren't in the book she is selling in this thread?

Do you see her in the applied ethics sub, extending on the values she believes are to be found in this book she is selling in this thread, showing how all of its knowledge can be applied in your real life?

The mystery is not her motives, those are green and obvious. The mystery is her methods, or more accurately her persistence with methods which remain unchanged after decades of awful results.

She doesn't like the explanation for that last thing though and will spend pages whining if her attention is drawn to it.

This is so funny to me. Group think is dangerous in that it has a culture of its own and you can’t cross it for fear of being reprimanded, or worse, ostracized.

Why does FlashDangerpants come back to this thread if he is so positive this author is stupid and I’m worse for believing him? This is not a put down. It actually gives me hope. He’s not sure and that’s okay. I welcome him back into the fold as long as he keeps his negativity under wraps, which I highly doubt he can do. We shall see. 🫩

[Walker]

Could you give me an example of what you mean by a passive-aggressive technique?

Well excuse me for not being clear the first time, I'll try to live up to your high standards. Sorry!

I'm sorry you had to be offended by what I wrote.

I'm sorry you chose to be offended by what I wrote.

(Examples)

I get it. The person isn't really sorry. He's using sarcasm. Thanks, Walker, for explaining what you meant.

That's an assumption, for sure. The person may be totally sincere and not on your wavelength, especially if he or she (or I suppose he/she), is an old codger, one of those curmudgeons disillusioned by the slings and arrows, who never cracks a smile.

[Fairy]

That’s good to hear, but children could be seriously harmed. We all know this.

But none of us here is a child, Peacegirl. Don't you see your little scenario is irrelevant?

It's very relevant actually, you adults were once a child, can you remember being a child, or have you no recognition of ever being a child, Belinda?

It's no coincidence that a child came before an adult. Think about that B before you arrogantly position yourself upon your intellectual high horse.

I prefer the company of children. They are filled with fun. That's a little insight into what Heaven will be like. I am looking forward to it. LOL


Matthew 18:3: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”.

Mark 10:15: “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it”.

Matthew 18:4: “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”.

[FlashDangerpants]

Having said what I said I am puzzled as to your motive for using this website.

Do you see her in the political philosophy sub discussing things that aren't in the book she is selling in this thread?

Do you see her in the applied ethics sub, extending on the values she believes are to be found in this book she is selling in this thread, showing how all of its knowledge can be applied in your real life?

The mystery is not her motives, those are green and obvious. The mystery is her methods, or more accurately her persistence with methods which remain unchanged after decades of awful results.

She doesn't like the explanation for that last thing though and will spend pages whining if her attention is drawn to it.

This is so funny to me. Flash can’t resist coming back to this thread. This is not a put down. It actually gives me hope. He’s not sure and that’s okay. I welcome him back into the fold as long as he keeps his negativity under wraps, which I highly doubt he can do. We shall see. 🫩

I will comment exactly where I feel like and will write exactly what I think to be the case.

I have spent time reading your first three chapters at least twice, most parts more than that. Belinda hasn't, Walker hasn't.

I have read philosophy at university and at home for many years. You haven't. I have raised relevant issues based on that learning, and you have failed to understand them. To deflect this problem, or perhaps out of some Dunning Krueger's situation, you insist instead that I didn't read your chapters; that I am animated by fear of determinism; and that I am dishonest and cruel. While I am perfectly happy to be quite cruelly honest with you, as I often am with Belinda and Walker, the rest is just your effort to ad hominem me.

You don't understand the criticisms I level, that's fine, I will find a way to express them in terms that you can pick up on if you are honest and of average intelligence. But after I have done so multiple times, and you accuse me of only calling you dumb because you can't use quote tags, either your honesty or your ability must be below the necessary minimum.

The simple fact is that you have wasted years on this book selling project. And you have not changed your approach to it in all that time. I must therefore conclude that the primary realm in which you fail is intelligence.

[peacegirl]

Well excuse me for not being clear the first time, I'll try to live up to your high standards. Sorry!

I'm sorry you had to be offended by what I wrote.

I'm sorry you chose to be offended by what I wrote.

(Examples)

I get it. The person isn't really sorry. He's using sarcasm. Thanks, Walker, for explaining what you meant.

That's an assumption, for sure. The person may be totally sincere and not on your wavelength, especially if he or she (or I suppose he/she), is an old codger, one of those curmudgeons disillusioned by the slings and arrows, who never cracks a smile.

This was my fear. You have no idea how powerful this law is when it’s applied. Sorry you did not take the time to understand the actual discovery which takes more than a few sound bites.

[peacegirl]

Do you see her in the political philosophy sub discussing things that aren't in the book she is selling in this thread?

Do you see her in the applied ethics sub, extending on the values she believes are to be found in this book she is selling in this thread, showing how all of its knowledge can be applied in your real life?

The mystery is not her motives, those are green and obvious. The mystery is her methods, or more accurately her persistence with methods which remain unchanged after decades of awful results.

She doesn't like the explanation for that last thing though and will spend pages whining if her attention is drawn to it.

This is so funny to me. Flash can’t resist coming back to this thread. This is not a put down. It actually gives me hope. He’s not sure and that’s okay. I welcome him back into the fold as long as he keeps his negativity under wraps, which I highly doubt he can do. We shall see. 🫩

I will comment exactly where I feel like and will write exactly what I think to be the case.

You are entitled. Who said you weren’t?

I have spent time reading your first three chapters at least twice, most parts more than that. Belinda hasn't, Walker hasn't.

I’m glad. This gives a common ground to meet.

I have read philosophy at university and at home for many years. You haven't. I have raised relevant issues based on that learning, and you have failed to understand them. To deflect this problem, or perhaps out of some Dunning Krueger's situation, you insist instead that I didn't read your chapters; that I am animated by fear of determinism; and that I am dishonest and cruel. While I am perfectly happy to be quite cruelly honest with you, as I often am with Belinda and Walker, the rest is just your effort to ad hominem me.

I know you have tried, and I appreciate the hard work it took to get there. I commend you highly, but please don’t use your education as a standard to disqualify this author. That’s all I’m asking of you.

You don't understand the criticisms I level, that's fine, I will find a way to express them in terms that you can pick up on if you are honest and of average intelligence. But after I have done so multiple times, and you accuse me of only calling you dumb because you can't use quote tags, either your honesty or your ability must be below the necessary minimum.

I admit I am in nursery school when it comes to tech because I’ve never done it. Truthfully, does this exclude the possibility that he is right? No, it doesn’t. The two don’t relate.

The simple fact is that you have wasted years on this book selling project. And you have not changed your approach to it in all that time. I must therefore conclude that the primary realm in which you fail is intelligence.

Its ingenuous to go down that rabbit hole. With your belief that he had nothing of value before you really have gotten a full understanding of how this works will not give the respect this knowledge deserves. I hope this doesn’t happen because this thread is dying a death that is extremely premature and preventing what we all want: peace on earth.

[Atla]

Then again, they could have a chosen one / savior complex AND be after money AND be extremely dumb. Yeah I think I'll settle on this one.

[peacegirl]

Well excuse me for not being clear the first time, I'll try to live up to your high standards. Sorry!

I'm sorry you had to be offended by what I wrote.

I'm sorry you chose to be offended by what I wrote.

(Examples)

I get it. The person isn't really sorry. He's using sarcasm. Thanks, Walker, for explaining what you meant.

That's an assumption, for sure. The person may be totally sincere and not on your wavelength, especially if he or she (or I suppose he/she), is an old codger, one of those curmudgeons disillusioned by the slings and arrows, who never cracks a smile.

Regardless of why, he is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is all that matters, regardless of motives, because this movement is the first side of the two-sided equation (that we have no free will), THE DISCOVERY ITSELF, which I have been unable to elucidate.

[Walker]

Sorry you did not take the time to understand the actual discovery which takes more than a few sound bites.

Yeah, that's too bad. I suppose 50 words was too high a price for my salvation.

[Walker]

Regardless of why, he is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is all that matters, regardless of motives, because this movement is the first side of the two-sided equation (that we have no free will), THE DISCOVERY ITSELF, which I have been unable to elucidate.

Everyone does what they must to support and affirm their self-concept, including the garbage man, therefore the greatest satisfaction is to affirm the self-concept, even if it makes one miserable on a day-to-day basis ... which btw, is why everything that everyone does is what had to be done ... Determinism.

[FlashDangerpants]

I have read philosophy at university and at home for many years. You haven't. I have raised relevant issues based on that learning, and you have failed to understand them. To deflect this problem, or perhaps out of some Dunning Krueger's situation, you insist instead that I didn't read your chapters; that I am animated by fear of determinism; and that I am dishonest and cruel. While I am perfectly happy to be quite cruelly honest with you, as I often am with Belinda and Walker, the rest is just your effort to ad hominem me.

I know you have tried, and I appreciate the hard work it took to get there. I commend you highly, but please don’t use your education as a standard to disqualify this author. That’s all I’m asking of you.

You don't understand the criticisms I level, that's fine, I will find a way to express them in terms that you can pick up on if you are honest and of average intelligence. But after I have done so multiple times, and you accuse me of only calling you dumb because you can't use quote tags, either your honesty or your ability must be below the necessary minimum.

I admit I am in nursery school when it comes to tech because I’ve never done it. Truthfully, does this exclude the possibility that he is right? No, it doesn’t. The two don’t relate.

The simple fact is that you have wasted years on this book selling project. And you have not changed your approach to it in all that time. I must therefore conclude that the primary realm in which you fail is intelligence.

Its ingenuous to go down that rabbit hole. With your belief that he had nothing of value before you really have gotten a full understanding of how this works will not give the respect this knowledge deserves. I hope this doesn’t happen because this thread is dying a death that is extremely premature and preventing what we all want: peace on earth.

Please just stop trying with the quote thing. You only make it worse. Just reply at the end of the post as I am here, that is the best you can do.

I told you explicitly that I have raised philosophical problems with the work you have put before me. Here you go again, in your reply to that, assuming that the only reason I think you are an idiot is that you cannot work computers. I think you are an idiot because you cannot even get that there are problems with this book. That is the primary reason I consider you a complete windowlicker.

At no point in any of our conversations has my disdain for your inept tag excesses been anything like the reason why I think your dad's book is bad. Yet here you go again, insisting that I am that random. You are even replying to a paragraph where I make it explicit that I think you are dumb because you keep overlooking this and insisting it is predicated on your computer problems.... you still replied by accusing me of predicating all of this on your computer problems... You must be a moron to reply that way to that prompt, no capable person would stoop so low. You are a total idiot, it is clear and obvious.

You provided three chapters and those were not very good. If I cannot discuss the book on the basis of the three chapters, you can either move onto the fourth chapter (which you refuse to do unless paid) or you will have to account for issues raised by the first three. I am not buying your book. You wouldn't like the Amazon review I would leave if I did.

There is no reason at all not to make note of the fact that you have wasted years selling this book to nobody and not looking for new ways of expressing the content. If peace on earth truly depends on you selling millions of copies of this book and getting rich, the world is fucked, because you do a shit job.

You are the bringer of war and death by your lazy and inflexible promotional campaign.