Philosophy Now Forum

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:32 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:24 pm

What assumptions and beliefs? You can't tell me because you don't know Age.

Once again you have just shown another assumption and belief of yours, which are leading you completely astray. Do, there is one. Another one is you assume and believe that 'I' want to prove 'that one' wrong.

Are you "janis rafael"?

Yes, I never hid this.

Age wrote:If yes, then would you like to have a chat in private message, or just continue, here, in public?

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective. Srsly, how can I defend myself? I can't help that he was my father. For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:32 pm

Once again you have just shown another assumption and belief of yours, which are leading you completely astray. Do, there is one. Another one is you assume and believe that 'I' want to prove 'that one' wrong.

Are you "janis rafael"?

Yes, I never hid this.

Age wrote:If yes, then would you like to have a chat in private message, or just continue, here, in public?

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective. Srsly, how can I defend myself? I can't help that he was my father. For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

Don't get me wrong, what you are doing is just continuing a family business, the whole thing is so mad that I can only assume you are actually in on your dad's scam. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that you are selling a low quality alternative to Scientology didn't I? I'm sure that's roughly what I wrote at the start of all this, is it not?

The suggestion that you might be honestly incapable of rethinking your daddy's work is just a polite nod to the possibility that you are in the cult, a product of the cultish thinking, rather than an architect of the pocket picking in your own right.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:32 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:24 pm

What assumptions and beliefs? You can't tell me because you don't know Age.

Once again you have just shown another assumption and belief of yours, which are leading you completely astray. Do, there is one. Another one is you assume and believe that 'I' want to prove 'that one' wrong.

Are you "janis rafael"?

Yes, I never hid this.

Age wrote:If yes, then would you like to have a chat in private message, or just continue, here, in public?

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

Does it matter if you also understand what others are trying to explain? Or, to you, does it only matter one way, here?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:32 pm

Once again you have just shown another assumption and belief of yours, which are leading you completely astray. Do, there is one. Another one is you assume and believe that 'I' want to prove 'that one' wrong.

Are you "janis rafael"?

Yes, I never hid this.

Age wrote:If yes, then would you like to have a chat in private message, or just continue, here, in public?

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective.

Once more you are assuming, and then believing, things, which are totally False and Wrong.

Imagine 'trying to' teach someone 'else's writings while at the exact same time not following their own advice. Why do you not follow your "father's" own advice "peacegirl" and just be what "he" called 'open-minded' "yourself", here?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm Srsly, how can I defend myself?

What are you even asking, here?

Can your "father's" writings 'stand' against all critique, questioning, and challenging?

If yes, then 'they' are how you can what you call 'defend' "yourself", here.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm I can't help that he was my father.

Once more you have 'drifted so far off track' because of your own made up assumptions, which you have then concluded, and believed, are absolutely true, although they are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

Did your "father" not teach you to not assume things and to not jump to False conclusions, and, instead, just 'look at', follow, and remain with, the actual Truth only?

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 9:52 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Yes, I never hid this.



It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective. Srsly, how can I defend myself? I can't help that he was my father. For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

Don't get me wrong, what you are doing is just continuing a family business, the whole thing is so mad that I can only assume you are actually in on your dad's scam. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that you are selling a low quality alternative to Scientology didn't I? I'm sure that's roughly what I wrote at the start of all this, is it not?

If you have assumed, and are believing, that 'it' is a 'scam' "flashdangerpants", then why are you still being 'involved with it', exactly?

Exactly like has been 'pointed out', already, it is people like you why, relatively, 'new ideas' do not come to light, and take off.

The very reason why absolutely False, Wrong, and Incorrect ideas and claims like, 'God created everything', 'the big bang created everything', 'the earth revolves around the sun', and/or 'the earth is flat' still remain as the 'current' view and belief is because people like you are absolutely closed to any and/or all new ideas, and this is because you are not able to 'look at' and 'see' things other than only 'that' what you have been taught to 'see', and believe.

And, the most humorous part of all of this is that when people like you are questioned and/or challenged over your 'current' views and beliefs you absolutely falter, fall, and fail.

For any and all of both the so-called "scientists" and "preachers" who want to claim things like, 'Some thing created everything', then just stop for one minute and think about just how absolutely absurd, ridiculous, irrational, and nonsensical your beliefs and claims really are.

If you did, then just maybe 'we' can move along, and progress, here, in Life.

And, for absolutely any human being who wants to claim that the Universe began, then let 'us' have 'a discussion'. The very reason why people do not is for the exact same reason "flashdangerpants" can not and will not have a discussion in this post, unlike 'me', 'you' people can not 'stand behind' your views, beliefs, and claims because you people, literally, have absolutely nothing that backs up and proves your view, belief, and/or claim absolutely and irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 9:52 pm The suggestion that you might be honestly incapable of rethinking your daddy's work is just a polite nod to the possibility that you are in the cult, a product of the cultish thinking, rather than an architect of the pocket picking in your own right.

Imagine being in either 'the camp', and cult, of, 'the Universe began by God', or, 'the Universe began by a bang', for example, and not even recognize that you in a cult, nor that 'you' are just another product of another cult, and 'that thinking'. For example imagine whinging and whining all the time about 'having to' go to work, in order to 'obtain money', because I 'have to' pay bills, because 'we need money to live', and not even recognizing that you are in the biggest scam and are 'the product' of the biggest 'cultish thinking'. Imagine living in 'that cult/ure' that you do, and never realizing that it is also just 'another cult/ure'.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 9:52 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 7:38 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Yes, I never hid this.



It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

What is happening here is that people are assuming that because I was his daughter, that I have a blind eye to truth, because I can't be objective. Srsly, how can I defend myself? I can't help that he was my father. For FlashDangerpants to say more than once that "if daddy said it, it must be right" is unfair, especially in a philosophy forum where jumping to false conclusions like he did should never be made.

[quote="FlashDangerpants"Don't get me wrong, what you are doing is just continuing a family business, the whole thing is so mad that I can only assume you are actually in on your dad's scam. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that you are selling a low quality alternative to Scientology didn't I? I'm sure that's roughly what I wrote at the start of all this, is it not?

You have not made anything perfectly clear FlashDangerpants; you have come to false conclusions because of your false assumptions. That's all you have done. And who made you the gatekeeper of new knowledge anyway?

This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition, and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.

FlashDangerpants wrote:The suggestion that you might be honestly incapable of rethinking your daddy's work is just a polite nod to the possibility that you are in the cult, a product of the cultish thinking, rather than an architect of the pocket picking in your own right.

It is YOU that is incapable of rethinking that my father's work could possibly be correct, which puts you in a worse category than me because you have read nothing, considered nothing, and asked nothing, yet you think you are right. That is called an egocentric individual. I wasted my time cutting and pasting for your convenience. You never once asked me a pertinent question. I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 12:12 am

peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 4:01 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 2:32 pm

Once again you have just shown another assumption and belief of yours, which are leading you completely astray. Do, there is one. Another one is you assume and believe that 'I' want to prove 'that one' wrong.

Are you "janis rafael"?

Yes, I never hid this.

Age wrote:If yes, then would you like to have a chat in private message, or just continue, here, in public?

It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that you understand what he was trying to explain.

Does it matter if you also understand what others are trying to explain? Or, to you, does it only matter one way, here?

You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off. What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible? If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:33 pm I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:46 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:33 pm I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion. BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology. I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:46 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:33 pm I'm getting a neon warning sign telling me it's not worth engaging with people who think they know before they know anything. That's you FlashDangerpants in a nutshell.

You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion. BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology. I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Not a libertarian. It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by. To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate. Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.





If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

"you are looking for sales"

Determined to make a buck... and not just metaphysically.

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:39 pm You just can't believe that this work is not a matter of opinion, and it pisses you all off. What did anyone explain that proved the author wrong other than saying it's impossible? If it makes you feel better, I will say, "Sure, it could be wrong, just as 1 +1 =2 could be wrong.

It's a fact that his work is just a matter of (very irrational) opinion as I've shown you like 6 times over. Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 8:05 pm Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 8:14 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 8:05 pm Were you really so brainwashed that you think his work is on the level of a mathematical proof? No one is pissed off here.

Not even bothering to be cruel, this theory is not even among the top 10 shittiest we've seen. And peacegirl is just one among dozens of people who've shown up around here promising that their one special trick can either save the world, or explain everything in it, or else complete the mystical union between science and religion.

I'll be honest, I think even Age's theory is better. There's at least a small chance that that one is onto something. This blame trickery on the other hand..

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:20 pm

peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 5:46 pm
You were never here to engage, you are looking for sales.

I came here to share a discovery, not to get your opinion. BTW, you are wrong about calling the movement toward greater satisfaction nothing more than a tautology. I didn’t realize you were a libertarian which explains why you’re so adamant.

Not a libertarian.

Then you're a compatibilist. You certainly aren't a determinist.

FlashDangerpants wrote:It is tautalogical within the limits of common-sense folk psychology (in line belief desire motivation) that whatever motivates us to make a decision is something that we are motivated by.

It's not about what we were motivated by. It's about the direction we move and it's a one way street.

FlashDangerpants wrote:To not hold that as a tautology, you would need to adopt a radical alternative view of persons in which beliefs and desires don't motivate.

Who in the world said that we are not driven by what we are motivated by. This isn't even part of his demonstration as to why will is not free.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Motivation is the onlything that needs explanation when it comes to why a conscious organism makes a decision, so the spooky "greatest satisfaction" thing has nothing to explain. It is redundant and pointless.

Again, we all know that what we are motivated by pushes us in a certain direction. This supports the fact that we have no free will. Why? Because the direction we move from moment to moment is a one-way street.

FlashDangerpants wrote:You refuse to share your "second discovery" with anybody doesn't purchase it from you. I expected that, it is a hypothesis we tested together. You were there to witness the truth of the matter.

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.

FlashDangerpants wrote:If you were here to share instead of to sell, you would share. Just explain the other discoveries in your own words and then I will be wrong and you will be proven right. So just do that now, then you win your argument don't you?

Not gonna happen. Buy the book for 99 cents, which you won't because you think this is some kind of scheme for money.