New perspectives on Relativity

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

a true test to what someone believes or demands is truth is how they react when you question it.

Given that, what would you say are appropriate and inappropriate reactions to such a test?

 

[P.S.A.]

Re: Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

How Liegazer's Mind Works;

1.) He at some point gained a sense of his own divinity, perhaps as a response to some earlier trauma which shook his sense of self worth.

2.) Someone pointed out a flaw with his then understanding of what this implied with regards to theological issues.

3.) A period of mental anguish then occured for him, until...

4.) His mind found a way out; he came to believe even more strongly in his new found Godhood... which, in the face of rational of criticism, seemed to be a minor triumph

5.) Thus, instead of feeling wrong, Liegazer felt more intelligent, more succesful than previously

6.) Someone pointed out that Liegazer was still wrong

7.) Mental anguish again ensues, until...

8.) Liegazer get's an even stronger sense that he understands the world better than anyone else... Indeed, not only that he understands better than anyone else, but in what can only be classed as a miraculous revelation, that the universe has revealed itself perfectly to him

9.) Someone points out that he doesn't seem to be able to show this to someone else

10.) Mental anguish again, until...

11.) Liegazer escapes this by persuading himself that no one else can see, let alone perform this same miracle of realization themselves, as they haven't realised they are God themselves yet. He remains special.

12.) The downward spiral continues... until Liegazer comes to believe that he's not only understanding the world, but he's actually able to shape it too, actually able to perform genuine miracles.
After all, he does this every time he is cornered... what he once said before, now the complete opposite is true... and it IS TRUE, because the universe has completely changed in order to support his beliefs... at least, inside his own mind it has, and always does. And that, remember, is the only place he thinks experience exists. So if he previously said the SOL wasn't absolute, but now he says it is absolute, then it is and always has been. And if he then denies it again, that he claims it follows Newtonian understandings, then it always has.

Liegazer is seriously ill folks, as well as (unsurprisingly) not even original. Repeated again without further comment is the relevant passages from 1984 once more...

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

And following on from this, Liegazer himself is revealed;

'We are the priests of power,' he said. 'God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: "Freedom is Slavery". Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone -- free -- the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter -- external reality, as you would call it -- is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute.'

For a moment Winston ignored the dial. He made a violent effort to raise himself into a sitting position, and merely succeeded in wrenching his body painfully.

'But how can you control matter?' he burst out. 'You don't even control the climate or the law of gravity. And there are disease, pain, death --'

O'Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. 'We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.'

I have also, in Liegazer's honor, picked up a copy of Voltaire's "Candide"... I thought a book which ends with the refrain ...

"That's true enough" Said Candide "But we must go and work in the garden"

... Would be a fitting tribute to someone who now loathes philosophers, but disparges any genuine material efforts to make the world better. Truly, he is JREF's very own Panglazer...

 

[Pahansiri]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

Given that, what would you say are appropriate and inappropriate reactions to such a test?

I believe an “appropriate” why to respond to ones quieting of a belief or statement of mine is to listen, be open minded and calm free from emotions, needs to “be right”.

Perhaps my post was not clear as to what I was saying I do not have the best writing skills. I believe the way one reacts to a questing or testing of their beliefs can tell you a great deal about how any why they think or believe as they do.

For me and I believe you and many I am in a place in my life that if I believe something and I am proven to be wrong I am happy to have this new truth, I have no emotional grasping to a belief.


As to an "appropriate reaction" not for me to tell anyone how to act or what to believe.

 

[P.S.A.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On the motion of light in a real world.

I believe an “appropriate” why to respond to ones quieting of a belief or statement of mine is to listen, be open minded and calm free from emotions, needs to “be right”

Actual sensible post time; I disagree that someone should be calm about defending their beliefs... it's actually reasonable to assume they won't be at first, because they are likely to both believe in something and believe that their viewpoint is Good. It's very human to defend Good and Self therefore passionately against someone who challenges that... at first
I think what defines a decent person is actually two things;

Do they have strong sense of what it is they believe?

And are they prepared to look open mindedly at how they got to that sense after the initial shock that someone is challenging that sense?

You see, a decent person believes in doing genuine Good. If you don't understand or cannot define what that Good even supposedly is, how can you be sure you believe in it? How can you know how something you don't clearly know will affect the world? Someone who knows but cannot explain clearly what it is that they know isn't interested in being Good: They are interested in being Right, and that's not the same thing.

And someone genuinely Good also wants to be certain that what they are doing can genuinely do ... I've believed many things over the years, but belief isn't enough; you have to be able to show that it's good for someone else too, and that means challenging your own assumptions first. If I say "Political action X leads to consequence Y which people think Z about", I need to show that steps X-Y and Y-Z actually do make sense. If I refuse to address reasons why they do not, once more, I'm not interested in being Good, I more interested in being Right...

 

[Pahansiri]

Hello P.S.A..

I disagree that someone should be calm about defending their beliefs... it's actually reasonable to assume they won't be at first, because they are likely to both believe in something and believe that their viewpoint is Good. It's very human to defend Good and Self therefore passionately against someone who challenges that... at first

I respect that is your belief. My point is that when someone demands to you what they believe is the big T, the big truth and your belief is false if you question them and anger arises such as being condescending, name calling, saying things like “ deal with it” etc it is pretty clear their beliefs are emotion based.

For me if someone does not believe what I say that is fine I do not seek to or have the power to change anyone no one does so why would I become emotional about it. I do not take it personally if someone does not believe me or says I am wrong such is emotional based and brings one off center and clear thinking, I believe..

Allow me to examples.

I am a sports nutritionist, strength & conditioning coach. Many clients are sent to me for my emotional and motivation work. I train many combat athletes such as wrestlers, boxers and extreme/ ultimate fighters also football players etc.

I teach my clients to never allow emotion, anger to enter into the competition when it does your opponent gains an advantage as you no longer are thinking clearly and seek ‘revenge”.

Watch some of the best ultimate fighters in the world they are very calm always aware. When you become blinded by rage you are truly blinded and miss many openings and many things they will do to you.

All the ra-ra stuff before a game ends as soon as the game starts it is all fluff. I teach athletes to slow down in their mind the movements of their opponent. Hank Aaron did this in baseball and said he could count the threads in the ball. Still the best HR hitter and at 190 and no steroids.


One more example I play a great deal of poker, I love and look forward to putting another player on tilt I want them to go crazy because I just slow played a hand and took ½ their stack, why because they will tile and hand me the rest.

I also do not get upset or take personally a lost hand or a bad beat, if I do I do not clearly think about the new hand.

I think what defines a decent person is actually two things;

Do they have strong sense of what it is they believe?

And are they prepared to look open mindedly at how they got to that sense after the initial shock that someone is challenging that sense?

I understand what you are saying but may now agree with the use of “decent person”. I believe lifegazer is a good and decent person. I try to only judge an action not the actor. I always keep in mind the words of Longfollow found at the end of my post

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

You see, a decent person believes in doing genuine Good. If you don't understand or cannot define what that Good even supposedly is, how can you be sure you believe in it?

I believe people can for many reasons convince themselves that no matter what they do it is good. They come to believe that even harming others is “ doing the right thing”.

How can you know how something you don't clearly know will affect the world?

Not sure what you mean, I am a tad slow.lol

Someone who knows but cannot explain clearly what it is that they know isn't interested in being Good: They are interested in being Right, and that's not the same thing.

Again I know where you are going but perhaps, for me this is not the best example. I know many things I can not explain clearly and I am very interested in good.

I do believe we can look at the actions, post, words and or beliefs the tone etc and find the root of the actions or see into this root. You can see, feel the hurt, the self-image etc.

And someone genuinely Good also wants to be certain that what they are doing can genuinely do ... I've believed many things over the years, but belief isn't enough; you have to be able to show that it's good for someone else too, and that means challenging your own assumptions first. If I say "Political action X leads to consequence Y which people think Z about", I need to show that steps X-Y and Y-Z actually do make sense. If I refuse to address reasons why they do not, once more, I'm not interested in being Good, I more interested in being Right...

We are all at some point in our lives more interested in being Right we all change when it is our time, we can all trace the causes and conditions behind our actions. If someone demands they are right and yells and screams etc I believe it is easy to see what is behind it, to them I give my compassion.

Buddha said : when someone is afraid they are often very angry about it”

Just what I believe.

 

[P.S.A.]

I understand what you are saying but may now agree with the use of “decent person”. I believe lifegazer is a good and decent person. I try to only judge an action not the actor. I always keep in mind the words of Longfollow found at the end of my post

No, I disagree. Because LG doesn't have a consistent philosophy, so he cannot possibly know if his ideas will do good... he just assumes they will, and he does this because of arrogance and a desperate need to believe he has some worth.
He doesn't go out and commit clearly evil acts, true... but he hasn't genuinely stopped to think what the consequences of his "philosophy" would be... and that to me is the sign of a careless person at best... the fact that he also gets angry when his ideas are challenged, even to the point of comparing someone who does so to Hitler, indicates that he's not a decent person either. Few people with mental illnesses are, so I don't fault him that.

But he won't learn. He's been banned from many boards before because he was abusing scientific methods, and he's still at it today. I don't doubt that LG thinks of himself as a good guy; but he doesn't have the honesty to actually become one... he'd rather shout and insult people who tell him he's wrong instead of listening with an open mind... and then he lambasts you for being close minded too. You can't respect people like that, Pan... because any respect you might have they'll slowly wear out of you with continuous abuse; to use your sporting analogy again, he's the kind of fighter who'll say "Queensbury rules, yes? After all, we want a clean fight..." and then every now and then kick you in the nuts... but when you go to flatten him, says "Queensbury rules from now on, yes? I didn't mean to be dirty just then..." Interesting Ian's even worse for this, but blames it on the drink... Lifegazer does it, but is so insane I think he genuinely has difficulty remembering what he's said and done before

Mr Longfellow speaks wise words... but no matter how much sorrow others may have, letting them heap more onto you via tolerating anti social behaviour simply does not work; I speak as someone who's got an autistic brother, and believe me, there's only so much leeway you can give... beyond a certain point, you have to ultimately be selfish and say "I'm not going to let you do that, no matter what." You don't have to feel anger... although it's human to do so. But you can't tolerate every single thing. No human heart can take it.

 

[wraith]

Well wraith since you actually seem to be listening and thinking - here's something I threw lifegazer a while back but he didn't get. There does exist a model for separate processes being unaware of each other though all partaking of the same "essence", as it were. Big computer systems. There are lots of separate processes all running under the control of the operating system and all independent and usually unaware of each other. In fact there's a "virtual machine" concept where on computer acts like one or more apparently independent computers of a different type.
So that's one possible model. The trick then is to work out the transactional mechanism that lets us all agree that when I slap you on the back of the head we both agree that the "ouch" happens at the same time. I always find the "god just does it that way" answer unsatisfying.

Sorry, but I don't quite get either.

So you slap me on the head...
Are you saying that you and I both know that I hurt (or said ouch) at the same time?

 

[wraith]

Space is a meaningless concept unless there are "things" to separate. Unless there is 'something' external and separated (by space-time) from you, then there is no space.

What if you dream?
The worlds created have space as perceived by you. Does this space have any sort of existence to anyone else?
What's the difference between the space in your dream world compared to the space when you're awake?

Furthermore, even physics recognises that space and matter exist together in some kind of interactive tug-of-war. This is why gravity/motion affects space-time.
Of course, without change (of material states), time would not even exist.

What if you perceive no matter? Then there is no time?

Indeed, according to physics, it wasn't only matter that was created at the big-bang... but space-time also.

I noted before that you don't believe that the universe is expanding. Do you define the big bang in the tradition sense?

I can assure you that there is neither scientific or philosophical approval for the existence of space (or time) where nothing else exists.

As in nothing exists outside of mind?

'God' cannot be absolutely perceived, since perception focuses upon finite entities as yielded by the sensations.

'God' cannot be absolutely perceived by us or himself?

wraith: Does god ever perceive himself/herself/it just as you perceive yourself being "lifegazer"? Or is this impossible?

lifegazer:God perceives itself to be all finite entities that think themselves to be those entities.

So the simple answer being that god does not perceive himself as an individual just as I do?

God perceives himself through the act of perceiving yourself to be everyone else?

What's the reward for you for holding such a belief compared to a non-believer?

He doesn't exist, even now. So what can happen to 'him'?

But you still perceive things. Whether you hold the belief that you're god or not, you're still perceiving. That's existence in my books. Should "Lifegazer" stop perceiving...that's something bad happening to "lifegazer".

Did you read my post about heaven & hell and the 3 states of God's awareness?

(1) Divinely aware... or, God-aware. The dream maker.

In this state, are you saying that god has awareness of himself?

(2) Divinely unaware... lost in the dream of being and expression(amongst the world) and believing itself to be an object (lifeform with awareness) within that dream.

Such a state is you believinig to be god?

(3) Dead to being and expression in the world, but still existent and Divinely Unaware.

State 2 and 3 look similar. How would you know if you're dead to being and expression in the world and still be Divinely Unaware?

 

[wraith]

This issue of a "central server" runs into huge problems:

http://www.greylabyrinth.com/puzzles/answer.php?puzzle_id=puzzle181

Thanks for the link, but I don't violate relativity like the analogy says.

I don't leave the game to take a peak at your screen.
In the game analogy, we're equating perception to what we see on the screen. Which means that you can't get up and look at anothers screen while your computer is still on.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lifegazer and wraith in a philosophical discussion...

And I thought I had seen it all .

All we need now is Kumar joining in.

Hans

 

[Pahansiri]

Hello again my friend PDA

No, I disagree. Because LG doesn't have a consistent philosophy, so he cannot possibly know if his ideas will do good... he just assumes they will, and he does this because of arrogance and a desperate need to believe he has some worth.

My friend you missed my point as to the part of my post you quoted.

I said I judge the acts not the actor if his philosophy is consistent or not consistent is irrelevant to what I said, his philosophy or what he says here are his acts I can not know his life and really know him from here neither can you.

Yes it seems he has a need to be right and my point is I believe you can trace the roots of this and find suffering. It seems you also may have a need to be right concerning him by such are you any different, can good come from your anger at him?

For me I do not see how his philosophy has or can harm anyone. If he could make everyone believe his philosophy how would it harm anyone?

LG does not have the power to make anyone believe anything or feel anything he can not make anyone happy or sad or angry. If anyone here becomes angry with his actions or postings it is their choice to become angry you give LG power he does not have.

He doesn't go out and commit clearly evil acts, true... but he hasn't genuinely stopped to think what the consequences of his "philosophy" would be...

And just what are these consequences?

and that to me is the sign of a careless person at best...

This is irrelevant until you have demonstrated what consequences there would be.

the fact that he also gets angry when his ideas are challenged, even to the point of comparing someone who does so to Hitler, indicates that he's not a decent person either. Few people with mental illnesses are, so I don't fault him that.

You say he is judging others as being Hitlers yet you demand he is mental ill is this not the same thing? Yes he becomes angry it seems because people will not believe him that was the point of my post yet it seems and I may be wrong you are angry at him because of what he may believe and his actions.

He can call me Hitler or A-hole all day long it has no effect on me unless I allow it and then it is my fault not his. I am doing it to myself.

His calling me Hitler does not make me Hitler.

Speaking of Hitler read of his life his childhood and you can see what was the point of my post and what Longfellow is saying.

But he won't learn.

You point out he becomes upset that you and I will not ( learn) believe what he says and you become angry because he will not ( learn) believe what you say.

He's been banned from many boards before because he was abusing scientific methods, and he's still at it today.

No, that is not true it has nothing to do with “abusing scientific methods” it had to do with the style and tone of his post.

I don't doubt that LG thinks of himself as a good guy; but he doesn't have the honesty to actually become one...

That is your opinion and I must respect that but believe it is based in emotion and not in fact you simply can not him and his life to make such a judgment.

he'd rather shout and insult people who tell him he's wrong instead of listening with an open mind...

There is truth in this and my point was looking deeply we could find in his life suffering that is at the root of this. But can not we say you are yelling at me a bit and at LG a lot because he does not agree with you?

and then he lambasts you for being close minded too.

yes he does and it means nothing to me I feel no effect of his lambasting. Just words on a screen they mean nothing to me.

You can't respect people like that, Pan...

You say he tells you what to believe and you have told me what to believe right? The truth is I can and do respect everyone while I may not respect ones actions I always love and respect them I can not know the causes and conditions behind their actions.

When I debate the death penalty I always use this example.

There is a man on death row ( true story). He kidnapped, tortured and raped and killed several women. I ask the person who is pro-death penalty ( many times they say they are Pro-life which is another topic) would you kill this man would you pull the switch. All, every time have said YES.

Here is the rest of the story.

The short version. At 5 he was kidnapped and raped over and over by several people and then sold into slavery and used for years in child porn movies. He was tortured and raped and beaten both on film and in his daily life, he was a drug addict by 6.

Is it so easy now to hate him to kill this man/child? This is someone’s child who never got to raise and love him he was never allowed to be a child a teen an adult. He did wrong that is clear but should he have taken from him the only life he has left when he has never known a life of joy?

He does not want to die he also does not every want to be let out of prison.

because any respect you might have they'll slowly wear out of you with continuous abuse;

He has no power to wear me out he has no power over anyone unless you allow it.

to use your sporting analogy again, he's the kind of fighter who'll say "Queensbury rules, yes? After all, we want a clean fight..." and then every now and then kick you in the nuts... but when you go to flatten him, says "Queensbury rules from now on, yes?

Not a good analogy LG can cause no one here real harm, no one will have sore nuts unless they self smack them. He has broken no rules here and if he does he will be booted out as the fighter would be from the ring.

Interesting Ian's even worse for this, but blames it on the drink...

I do not know of the Ian story, if he blames his actions on drinking can not you have great compassion for him, think about what lead to his drinking ( if that is true) and such actions. I feel great sadness for anyone like that and hope they find happiness. BUT I can tell you for sure there is nothing they can say here that will cause the real suffering that was is the same as his/hers.

Lifegazer does it, but is so insane I think he genuinely has difficulty remembering what he's said and done before

And how does this really effect your life?

Mr Longfellow speaks wise words... but no matter how much sorrow others may have, letting them heap more onto you via tolerating anti social behaviour simply does not work;

You gave LG a great deal of power, you believe he controls you? He has some power over you to “make” you feel things?

There is a tab button if he bothers you just tab by and don’t read him he can not force you to he can not force you to do anything.

I speak as someone who's got an autistic brother, and believe me, there's only so much leeway you can give...

I will not comment on this but will just say there is no limit to what I will give but I can only speak for myself as you can only do the same. I am sure if your brother had a choice he would choose not to be autistic I am sure his goal is not to bother anyone.

beyond a certain point, you have to ultimately be selfish and say "I'm not going to let you do that, no matter what.

I tell no one what to do or what to believe, if I did I would be like LG right?

You don't have to feel anger... although it's human to do so.

It is within human nature to kill, to lie, to steal etc I seek to do none of these things.

But you can't tolerate every single thing. No human heart can take it.

1- The heart pumps oxygenated blood it does not think or feel emotions.
2- I tell no one what to do or what to believe, if I did I would be like LG right?



Be well my friend.

 

[Z]

Pan, it's one thing to have a proverbial 'bleeding heart' for people, to understand the roots of their problems; it is another altogether to tolerate their behavior or eschew punishments in light of those roots. Many people overcome their pasts, rather than act them out; many suffer far worse and still make it on top, rather than succumb to the negative acts that characterise the example you made.

I am the only white guy in a predominantly black, low-class community. Only a mile from here, killings are a weekly event. Many of them blame their environment, their neighborhood, their schools. They say they commit crimes, use drugs, etc. because their childhood predisposed them to it, and they are victims, rather than villains.

Yet there are those here, in the same neighborhood, who have chosen to break the cycle, to stay in school, to learn and grow. And many of the adults on my street broke that cycle, though they chose to live close to their earlier home.

Behaviour is determined in part by environment and genetics, but also through personal responsibility. The guy sold into slavery and used in child porn ought to be executed - his childhood has no bearing on my sympathy for or against his acts. In fact, we find that MOST people who commit offenses of this nature were in some way abused, neglected, molested, etc... should we forgive them all their acts because of the horrors of their past?

As for the potential consequences of lifegazer's beliefs - remember, one of his earliest posts (that I saw) was a call for revolution within the scientific community, to toss out current theories and research and focus on 'the mind' and 'power of placebo'. He'd put our medical and technological research on full halt while scientist wasted resources and times studying homeopathy and telepathy. He has demonstrated open hostility toward universitities and schools, and has demanded that all teaching be centered on the concept of subjectivity - that no one is ever really 'wrong'. His philosophy removes any sense of personal worth and replaces it with collective worth - to become part of the 'hive mentality' and submerge the self.

Potentially, his philosophy could throw humanity into a dark age, since medicine and technology would invariably suffer under his beliefs. Social reforms would simply halt, and - considering the nature of people - his philosophy would be used as an excuse by the most horrible of people who, not really embracing his philosophy, would do as they please, since, after all, 'it's all illusion and we're all God anyway'.

In fact, one could imagine the most horrid world imaginable from this philosophy. Granted, it's a worse-case scenario, and there will never be enough people following this thing to make that happen, but that potential still exists.

It's nice to dream about a world where everyone cooperates and gets along, but the chances of that ever happening are immeasurably small.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings zaayrdragon.

Pan, it's one thing to have a proverbial 'bleeding heart' for people, to understand the roots of their problems;

You speak of 2 differing things. I mean no disrespect but I really have no idea what a bleeding heart is.

I have respect and compassion for all beings and I do seek to understand the roots of their acts suffering but do not excuse actions just the actor. But do not excuse as to not doing what is right, the right “punishment” i.e. if someone kills they must be kept away in a humane way from others they may hurt.

LG is harming no one unless someone can show me with hard facts how he is.

it is another altogether to tolerate their behavior or eschew punishments in light of those roots.

You are assuming that I do not believe in punishing someone by law if they break the law I did not say that in any of my post so it is an assumption on your part not based in fact.

But back to LG who is the base of my post and our conversations. Is it your belief he should be punished for believing what he does, of having a ego or name calling? If so most here would have to at one time or another be punished.

Can you demonstrate to me how LG has caused real harm to anyone?

Many people overcome their pasts, rather than act them out; many suffer far worse and still make it on top, rather than succumb to the negative acts that characterise the example you made.

True some do but many, most do not. You have made a statement of fact that being many have had worse things happen to them then the man I gave as example and “made it to the top” can you please list them these “many”for me so I may research them. It is not enough to just make such a statement if it was LG would not be being talked about right now.

The fact is most in his position end up dead by the hands of others or themselves, in mental institutions or jail.

I am the only white guy in a predominantly black, low-class community.

Class in cast system?

Only a mile from here, killings are a weekly event. Many of them blame their environment, their neighborhood, their schools. They say they commit crimes, use drugs, etc. because their childhood predisposed them to it, and they are victims, rather than villains.

To say it is all that is silly to say it is none of it is silly the truth is always found in the middle way. But again where did I say people should not face effects of their actions? Remember I am Buddhist I believe there is no running from karma/cause and effect.

Yet there are those here, in the same neighborhood, who have chosen to break the cycle, to stay in school, to learn and grow. And many of the adults on my street broke that cycle, though they chose to live close to their earlier home.

True I have not disagreed with this. All beings react to differing stimuli in differing ways this too can to a point be also in many cases raced back a cause. A person who took the time to make a difference some event in their life.

Behaviour is determined in part by environment and genetics,

I would say a large part.

but also through personal responsibility.

I agree and this too is effected most greatly by the causes and conditions of their life. When one has never seen in their family personal responsibility they must see/learn it from some place ( for the most part). I as a Buddhist believe in rebirth and believe such things follow us as does our past actions/karma, just my belief and I do not demand it is fact or seek to “make” anyone agree or believe it.

The guy sold into slavery and used in child porn ought to be executed - his childhood has no bearing on my sympathy for or against his acts. In fact, we find that MOST people who commit offenses of this nature were in some way abused, neglected, molested, etc... should we forgive them all their acts because of the horrors of their past?

I don’t tell anyone what to think, feel or believe as I have said that is up to you.
May I ask that you show me where I say we should give them a free pass?
Should we forgive, I believe yes but do not tell you what to do. I believe AS I said he should be in jail as he said he should. I also believe is you were in his shoes you may feel in a different way, I may be wrong.

As for the potential consequences of lifegazer's beliefs - remember, one of his earliest posts (that I saw) was a call for revolution within the scientific community, to toss out current theories and research and focus on 'the mind' and 'power of placebo'.

And is the scientific community lining up to do this? Do you believe LG has the power to do this? Come on this is a discussion board he has the power to say what he believes only nothing more. Trust me the scientific community is safe.

He'd put our medical and technological research on full halt while scientist wasted resources and times studying homeopathy and telepathy.

Come on my friend, you are an intelligent person, you seem to be saying LG may have the power to do such things????

[/quote]He has demonstrated open hostility toward universitities and schools, and has demanded that all teaching be centered on the concept of subjectivity - that no one is ever really 'wrong'. [/quote]

And, do you know of even ONE that has followed him??? He can demand until his face is blue this is a discussion board nothing else.

His philosophy removes any sense of personal worth and replaces it with collective worth - to become part of the 'hive mentality' and submerge the self.

And he is free to believe as he wish, you do believe in freedom of thought I am very sure.

Potentially, his philosophy could throw humanity into a dark age, since medicine and technology would invariably suffer under his beliefs. Social reforms would simply halt, and - considering the nature of people - his philosophy would be used as an excuse by the most horrible of people who, not really embracing his philosophy, would do as they please, since, after all, 'it's all illusion and we're all God anyway'.

??? you REALLY believe he has such power, come on. Would you place in prison or kill anyone who does not believe as you do? Every homeless person in NYC who is so ill he stand by the subway entrance saying “ the end is near”??

In fact, one could imagine the most horrid world imaginable from this philosophy. Granted, it's a worse-case scenario, and there will never be enough people following this thing to make that happen, but that potential still exists.

tell me this. After all the years LG has been doing this, make for me a list of every one he has as a follower.

List them all for me and let us count them. Then we can make a calculation as to how many of these people it will take to do what you fear.

The number I believe of his followers after years of doing this is. ZERO. We are all safe.

It's nice to dream about a world where everyone cooperates and gets along, but the chances of that ever happening are immeasurably small.

Smaller if we wish that people only believe as we wish them to.

Be well.

 

[RussDill]

Thanks for the link, but I don't violate relativity like the analogy says.

I don't leave the game to take a peak at your screen.
In the game analogy, we're equating perception to what we see on the screen. Which means that you can't get up and look at anothers screen while your computer is still on.

The same conflict exists, because there is a central, absolute reference frame.

 

[Z]

Greetings zaayrdragon.

And to you, Pahansiri.

You speak of 2 differing things. I mean no disrespect but I really have no idea what a bleeding heart is.

<snip>
Should we forgive, I believe yes but do not tell you what to do. I believe AS I said he should be in jail as he said he should. I also believe is you were in his shoes you may feel in a different way, I may be wrong.

I apologize if my use of slang offends. Bleeding heart, in this case, is one who seeks sympathy through empathic association - 'If you were in his shoes'. But it is my opinion that the environment which leads to such persons and their acts also includes the system of deterrents and prior experiences of punishments of others. The sex offender cannot help himself, perhaps - but his punishment becomes a deterrent potential for future individuals. And I also believe our society to be in such a state that those who cannot be rehabilitated should be executed, if their criminal predispositions are violent, because the criminal system already uses resources at an alarming rate which would preferably used for education or medicine or social programs to alter these environments, rather than storing criminals for future use - or indefinite, like this one requested.

Again, my own belief.

But in America we get a whole lot of people who commit crimes, and almost the moment they are caught, start shedding personal responsibility in favor of 'bad upbringing' and 'poor environments'.

On the whole, I tire of the abuse of a very simple principle - abuse that continues to get out of hand with each passing year. It is unfortunate that some people cannot stop themselves from committing violent acts - those people are lost to this life. But storing them takes resources better used to prevent the next generation from producing these criminals in the first place.

And is the scientific community lining up to do this? Do you believe LG has the power to do this? Come on this is a discussion board he has the power to say what he believes only nothing more. Trust me the scientific community is safe.

<snip>

The number I believe of his followers after years of doing this is. ZERO. We are all safe.

Agreed - we are all safe for now. But safety requires vigilance. And all it takes is one madman with a potentially dangerous idea and an audience that is not exposed to the counterpoints, and what today is one lunatic can become tomorrow another Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or worse - another Muhammad. Agreed, Muhammad himself wasn't all that dangerous - but what he preached was so twisted by a few that now some live in fear every day from his followers.

Yes, right now lifegazer has no followers and no hope of changing even his home neighborhood. But if his ideas remain unchallenged, eventually he may stumble across a follower - wraith, perhaps? - who might convince another - and so forth. And one day, they might just get enough power to enact lg's more dangerous notions.

Being safe today is no guarantee of safety tomorrow.

Now, if lg wants to believe his philosophy, even wants to expose others to it in a general sense, I have no problem with that. But he has exposed a dark intention - to overthrow science and some of the cornerstones of society - and he offers nothing to replace them, nothing constructive or beneficial. And as his madness deepens, what is to say he won't come up with a plan of action to force his intents onto the public attention? Bomb a university, or assassinate a prominent researcher, or such as that?

Granted, there's nothing we can do about it if he does decide this; but we can argue against his numerous erroneous statements and defend truth and intellectual honesty against his posts - and as such, attempt to prevent passers-by from adopting his worldview.

I welcome all beliefs so long as they aren't a) pushed off on others and b) based upon falsehoods - and c) don't attempt to destroy things that benefit humanity.

Be well.

Blessings.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again zaayrdragon

I apologize if my use of slang offends.

No need to and I was not and it does not offend.

Bleeding heart, in this case, is one who seeks sympathy through empathic association - 'If you were in his shoes'. But it is my opinion that the environment which leads to such persons and their acts also includes the system of deterrents and prior experiences of punishments of others. The sex offender cannot help himself, perhaps - but his punishment becomes a deterrent potential for future individuals.

Again first I respect you and your opinion and only offer mine in return.

Using this man that I offered no I do not believe he could help himself I believe what happened to him caused damage that is beyond help perhaps and surly beyond his self helping.


His “punishment” has been dealt out him since age 5 when he was first taken. As I said I agree he should be in jail and he also says he wishes to be. BUT to execute him and that was my point of the statement as you know is fully and totally wrong and changes nothing and deters nothing.

With respect to say his “punishment becomes a deterrent potential for future individuals” simply is not based in any fact. If this were the case by this time after thousands of years punishing sex offender or murders or what be it there would be no more of them. This is clearly not the case.


Capital punishment changes nothing it does not stop anyone from doing the same things but the person killed. This man has been punished every day from age 5. The cost of Capital punishment is many times greater then keeping people in jail for life, as many believe it is cheaper, it is not as if that should matter.

And I also believe our society to be in such a state that those who cannot be rehabilitated should be executed, if their criminal predispositions are violent, because the criminal system already uses resources at an alarming rate which would preferably used for education or medicine or social programs to alter these environments, rather than storing criminals for future use - or indefinite, like this one requested.

But you said the capital punishment would deter and we have been doing it for thousands of years yet you say we have more crime then ever, as you see it does not work.

Many cases of people executed only to be proven innocent later have occurred and with improved DNA who knows how many were innocent. In such cases it is us who are the murderers.

What do we say to their loved ones “ oops”?

Again, my own belief.

And I respect that. But for me I believe if you were fallacy convicted, set up or if it was a loved on of yours who may have even really done such a crime it would be far harder to say it is a good thing.

But in America we get a whole lot of people who commit crimes, and almost the moment they are caught, start shedding personal responsibility in favor of 'bad upbringing' and 'poor environments'.

And the fact is it does play a LARGE part that being said as I have said as a Buddhist I do not believe one can hide from no should hide from punishment.

I also believe that if we say to kill is wrong then to kill is wrong.

On the whole, I tire of the abuse of a very simple principle - abuse that continues to get out of hand with each passing year. It is unfortunate that some people cannot stop themselves from committing violent acts - those people are lost to this life. But storing them takes resources better used to prevent the next generation from producing these criminals in the first place.

Have you ever been abused. Rapped, beaten, tortured etc? I hope not may I ask if your child is taken at 5 ( hope this never happens to you or anyone) and all the same things happen to him/her that happened to this man. Years latter you find him/her and they have killed as this man did will you stand in court and tell the judge you believe your child should die?

Agreed - we are all safe for now. But safety requires vigilance. And all it takes is one madman with a potentially dangerous idea and an audience that is not exposed to the counterpoints, and what today is one lunatic can become tomorrow another Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or worse - another Muhammad. Agreed, Muhammad himself wasn't all that dangerous - but what he preached was so twisted by a few that now some live in fear every day from his followers.

LG is not Jim Jones, or David Koresh or any such. I asked you to show me one person who follows LG and if they did what about his belief is a danger? Anyway he is harmless. There will always be people who do not believe as you do and have very crazy beliefs will you kill them all, not allow them to speak?

Yes, right now lifegazer has no followers and no hope of changing even his home neighborhood. But if his ideas remain unchallenged, eventually he may stumble across a follower - wraith, perhaps? - who might convince another - and so forth. And one day, they might just get enough power to enact lg's more dangerous notions.

I never said not to challenge his or any ideas we need to challenge all ideas I have done so over and over with LG.

Being safe today is no guarantee of safety tomorrow.

That is what Hitler said when he burned books, that is what many governments have said as they take rights to “protect” you.

Now, if lg wants to believe his philosophy, even wants to expose others to it in a general sense, I have no problem with that. But he has exposed a dark intention - to overthrow science and some of the cornerstones of society - and he offers nothing to replace them, nothing constructive or beneficial. And as his madness deepens, what is to say he won't come up with a plan of action to force his intents onto the public attention? Bomb a university, or assassinate a prominent researcher, or such as that?

Come on. Shall we just line up everyone you do not agree with and shoot them just incase they do something?

I welcome all beliefs so long as they aren't a) pushed off on others and b) based upon falsehoods - and c) don't attempt to destroy things that benefit humanity.

Anything can be said to fall into you’re a,b,c by any other person. With this everyone will just kill each other.

This is where we are headed to a great point in this country it has a danger of being . you have freedom to believe as you will as long as it is what I believe. You have freedom of speach as long as I agree with what you are saying. You have freedom of/from religion as long as it is the religion I believe in.

Freedom is freedom and can not be only a freedom to believe what you are allowed to believe, think or say.
Be well my friend

 

[P.S.A.]

Hello again my friend PDA

My friend you missed my point as to the part of my post you quoted.

I said I judge the acts not the actor if his philosophy is consistent or not consistent is irrelevant to what I said, his philosophy or what he says here are his acts I can not know his life and really know him from here neither can you.

This is wrong on two levels;

Firstly, if his acts are his philosophy, then the consistency of his philosophy and thus his acts are indeed relevant, because the nature of his acts is in part defined this by consistency.
The single word you need to understand this is "Hypocrisy". We can all be hypocrites by mistake, or by normal human failings... but this hypocrisy is one of the chief qualities of his belief system; he will change what he is claiming 100% in order to try and get someone to admire him... He will literally argue that White proves God, and then change his argument to Black proves God... and insult you after making both arguments, even if one of them was your own original argument.

Secondly, Lifegazer has argued that his "philosophy" leads to an effect upon your own life; ignore the miracles for a moment... he has claimed realising your own Godhood leads to inner peace, wisdom, and love for all men... And so Lifegazer's own life is fair game for analysis, at least with regards to those qualities. And he fails this test, miserably so. I've been deliberately acting Evil in order to prove this, over and over again. I am God, like he claims, so he should love me... But where as Jesus said to turn the other cheek, Lifegazer has nothing but insults and contempt for me... which I don't care about, but it proves he's lying when he claims his ideas automatically leads to loving other parts of God.. Indeed, he actually gets more angrier, less tolerant, less loving the more I remind him of evil. Right now, he's abandoning yet again the core tennat of his faith, which is his supposed evangelical role to other parts of God, because he can't bear to address me any more.

You know, my next little joke was going to be this; I was going to further pretend to be abusing my children every time they expressed any interest in God. I was going to make up some outlandish story, and then challenge Lifegazer to either miraculously discover my identity and report me to Social Services, use his heavenly powers to stop me himself from torturing the Evil, or explain why my Evil was more powerful than his words when it came to what my children dared think....

The fact that I don't even have any children, but that Lifegazer genuinely believes I am actually Evil, was going to be the crowning revelation... One other alternative for omincogniscant God would be to prove I was lying and thus discredit me completely. And his reaction? He ignores me So much for achieving Omnicogniscance as God, eh? Lifegazer does not have in his life the qualities he should have, if he truly was God.

If you make your "philosophy" so personal, expect it to be challenged on a personal level... and Lifegazer fails on this level, over and over again.

Yes it seems he has a need to be right and my point is I believe you can trace the roots of this and find suffering. It seems you also may have a need to be right concerning him by such are you any different, can good come from your anger at him?

Who says I am trying to do Good or I think I can do Right? I know full well I can't persuade him in any way... I've been politically active for over 20 years now, starting as Class Representative at age 11 or so, and I'm not naive enough to think any more that if only you have the right words or the right argument, you'll persuade someone. Try street fundraisning for charity if you want the ultimate proof of that.
No, what I'm doing here is merely entertaining myself, and anyone else who likes to see the self obsessed make fools of themselves... Lifegazer's arguments are nonsense, I do actually think... but prove they are nonsense? Everyone else will make up their own mind on that for themselves, and Lifegazer is too wedged ouroboros like up his own assumptions to ever understand any such proof... my role here is ultimately irrelevant to anyone, except to me. So what I do, I do purely for myself. The fact that Lifegazer can't even overcome this half-assed selfishness speaks volumes about his powers, but still... I hardly care whether he realises that or not. If someone laughs at my goading him with this impotence, then I've done as well as I can... but as I say, it's really irrelevant, and I have no need to be irrelevant.

For me I do not see how his philosophy has or can harm anyone. If he could make everyone believe his philosophy how would it harm anyone?

I already idly explained this to him, and he (as usual) simply refused to debate anything which didn't worship him as the All New Prophet. The idea of "love everyone else as yourself" isn't new... it's the basis of Communism for a start. But it simply doesn't work. It's a fatally flawed assumption, as Mankind simply isn't like that... man often doesn't even love himself as it is, and no matter how much information he is given that other men are of the precise same nature as them (Intellectually, biologically, physically) it doesn't change his attitude to other men.

And what does LG propose we do with this laughably naive concept? He proposes, as others have pointed out, we abandon every other form of knowledge but this one. And what do we get in return? He can't prove we gain omnipotence or omnicogniscence. He can't prove we even become better people. Because he personally hasn't become such a person... indeed at times his "philosophy" is nothing more than anger and arrogance run rampant. No, he suggests we pull down every single piece of progress this species of hairless apes actually has made in this harsh and uncaring universe, and replace it with... well... absolute bollocks.

It is an evil "philosophy" because it's completely stupid.

LG does not have the power to make anyone believe anything or feel anything he can not make anyone happy or sad or angry. If anyone here becomes angry with his actions or postings it is their choice to become angry you give LG power he does not have.

I'm not angry with him. I just take malicious glee in reminding him of this very impotence.

This is irrelevant until you have demonstrated what consequences there would be.

I repeat again, I and others here have pointed out to him these consequences... My little smilies have been making these points behind sarcasm... As I said, Lifegazer's only response to my endless simulated evil was to actually believe I meant it, be unable to offer any theoritical or practical counter measures to this (except for rewriting his entire philosophy to now include Hell j2 and then abandon it again when no one seemed particularly scared by this because he'd defined Hell as rewarding you for being Evil...!), and then he eventually runs off into silence in the hope people would forget how impotent he'd appeared.

So I'm not going to repeat them again, except to repeat that if the consequences of embracing ones own Godhood is that, like Lifegazer, you become God... Then why would anyone want to be like Lifegazer is presently now?! You may consider that harsh... Good, because the consequences of this insane mess of a philosophy are harsh.

You say he is judging others as being Hitlers yet you demand he is mental ill is this not the same thing?

No it's not... Can you show me where I have 12 million innocent deaths to my name?
Even if you embrace Lifegazer's understanding of reality (one of them, anyway... he has so many changing ideas), the very worst I can possibly do is what God ordained for me to do within the dream... and even then it's not certain I can actually kill anyone whilst there, not if they truly are God.

But Lifegazer on the other hand clearly is mentally ill: And I speak as a life long liberal here when I say "don't give me any PC crap about it", because I repeat again... My brother suffers from autism, which if you research the disease, is an even greater disconnection of the mind from reality. I recognise the way LG thinks... and it is a form of mental illness he's displaying, one I have personal experience of... You can believe me or not, but I'm not the only person to suspect this... where as you can't point to a single Anschluss of mine to justify LG's comparisons.

Yes he becomes angry it seems because people will not believe him that was the point of my post yet it seems and I may be wrong you are angry at him because of what he may believe and his actions.

No, I merely make no effort to hide my disgust for his behaviour.

His calling me Hitler does not make me Hitler.

In his mind, it DOES in fact make you Hitler

As I said, he has a broken, double think mind. You'll note he tried (briefly) to get action taken against me here at the JREF... because (for a while at least) he genuinely saw me as being personally responsible for war, suffering, evil in the world, because I rejected him personally.

Speaking of Hitler read of his life his childhood and you can see what was the point of my post and what Longfellow is saying.

No, that in fact tells me that Longfellow is ridiculously naive. Just because Hitler saw the horrors of Trench Warfare and mustard gas attacks, the collapse of Weimar Germany, poverty on the streets of Austria, and so on doesn't mean we have to be sympathetic to him... not if he is the man responsible for the Holocaust and devestation of World War II.

And just because I know my brother has autism, that doesn't mean I should be sympathetic to him when he's trying to smash up my other brothers £200 games console and put his fist through the screen, because he lost a game... He stops it, or he is stopped. Afterwards, you can regret that it had to come to that... and afterwards, deep down, you might still love him; but it does have to come to that all the same, like it or not.

Likewise, I might have some personal sympathy for Lifegazer, but if he's going to endlessly try and evangelicize an idea he can't even keep consistent, and then insult you because you won't embrace his ever changing, self obsessed ideas, I don't have to show sympathy for him either.

If you want that phrased in a philosophical way, I suggest to you Nietszche's argument for why God must be dead... because loving mankind would break even the most perfect heart; People are not seperable into "sympathetic experiences" and "negative actions"... and it is a foolish thing to approach the world in that way.

You point out he becomes upset that you and I will not ( learn) believe what he says and you become angry because he will not ( learn) believe what you say.

As I said, I don't expect him to learn anything. I just like reminding him that if he's going to act like an arrogant, self important ass hat, I'm going to treat him as one.

No, that is not true it has nothing to do with “abusing scientific methods” it had to do with the style and tone of his post.

Incorrect. And I quote again from the banning I was refering to;

Yes, he did discuss a wide variety of topics. Among them included relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, biochemistry, cognitive science, logic, and epistemology. And herein lies the entire problem: He was rewriting all of these subjects to suit his religious beliefs. PF is supposed to be a place where people come to be educated. If people (particularly young people) listen to him, it serves only to hamper the educational process, not help it. That is why the Mentors (especially me) felt the need to get involved, and eventually we simply tired of it. LG simply refused to learn from our explanations why he is so badly mistaken on just about every subject on which he tried to debate.

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-2045_Lifegazer's_Departure.html

You can read that thread to see that, although he was also rude at times there, the reason for his ban was not argument style at all... but that he was deliberately abusing scientific notions to fit his delusions.

That is your opinion and I must respect that but believe it is based in emotion and not in fact you simply can not him and his life to make such a judgment.

From the point of view of his "philosophy" how I know it is irrelevant. The fact that I think he's a lunatic proves that God has chosen a really lousy way of getting his message known... This is a flaw all religions ultimately have; but in LG's case, it's an especially big problem because the main reason we are supposed to embrace it is that we all become like God, and thus like him. But who on earth would want to?

There is truth in this and my point was looking deeply we could find in his life suffering that is at the root of this. But can not we say you are yelling at me a bit and at LG a lot because he does not agree with you?

No, you've come to believe I'm yelling at you, when I actually have no opinion in the slightest with regards to you. I post for my own amusement now, and hardly pay any attention to the more serious posters, because I just don't have the time or interest in debating serious things any more. Consider that a sign of respect if you will that I see you as a sensible poster.
With regards to your defense of Lifegazer, I view it exactly as I would if anyone said to me "But you've got to understand that when your brother does certain things, that he..." Well, understanding doesn't come in to it when such people are taken over by such manias... they can't even relate to people exterior to them when so engulfed; try and find a single post anywhere where Lifegazer states someone understands him, if you can, but I doubt extremely strongly you can.

You say he tells you what to believe and you have told me what to believe right? The truth is I can and do respect everyone while I may not respect ones actions I always love and respect them I can not know the causes and conditions behind their actions.

No, I've told you what I believe. What I believe strongly. If it persuades you, or not, I have no concern either way.

Just as I will do with this example below;

There is a man on death row ( true story). He kidnapped, tortured and raped and killed several women. I ask the person who is pro-death penalty ( many times they say they are Pro-life which is another topic) would you kill this man would you pull the switch. All, every time have said YES.

I say no. And I don't care what he's done. The answer is still no. But I have no interest in explaining why... You are already anti-death penalty. And if you were pro-death penatly, my arguments would be pointless. So I'm not interested in arguing too seriously with regards to this issue.

Here is the rest of the story.

The short version. At 5 he was kidnapped and raped over and over by several people ... *snips*

Is it so easy now to hate him to kill this man/child? This is someone’s child who never got to raise and love him he was never allowed to be a child a teen an adult. He did wrong that is clear but should he have taken from him the only life he has left when he has never known a life of joy?

This is irrelevant. People will hate him all the same, because of what he's done. Or they'll hate him if he's black. Or if he's gay. Or if his trial circus got in their way when driving to work. Some people will flick the switch for the sheer joy of ending another's life and telling themselves they are doing good whilst doing so.

Do you remember the James Bulgar case? Most of the country wanted the two children who committed that crime to be lynched. They have since, apparently, been largely rehabitilited... but the country still wants to lynch them. And if you read the newspapers, they want to lynch Gypsy families for having the nerve to exist. Lynch asylum seekers for coming to this country. Lynch the homeless for making them feel guilt during their lunch hour... Is it easy to hate? Hell, yes. Mankind does it every day... And this is the species we've got to work with, fact fans, an often hate filled species slapped down in a cold and uncaring universe.

So let's abandon science and law and all the established mechanisms which govern our behaviour today, and trust that this species listens to Lifegazer, of all Prophets, and embraces love for one and other, shall we...? Ahah ha ha ha... no, I think not.

Not a good analogy LG can cause no one here real harm, no one will have sore nuts unless they self smack them. He has broken no rules here and if he does he will be booted out as the fighter would be from the ring.

He does no harm because he's a harmless lunatic. But I'm arguing from within his own logical framework, not the reality of the JREF.

I do not know of the Ian story, if he blames his actions on drinking can not you have great compassion for him, think about what lead to his drinking ( if that is true) and such actions.

No.

Again, I suspect you don't know what the reality of living with such people is. I've lived with an alcoholic before, and my partners entire family are afflicted so... And compassion isn't even noticed by such people, let alone something you can maintain for very long. The first lesson you learn is that you can't care for someone whose mind has gone to such dark places, at best all you can do is support someone. And at times, not even that.

I feel great sadness for anyone like that and hope they find happiness. BUT I can tell you for sure there is nothing they can say here that will cause the real suffering that was is the same as his/hers.

Again, you clearly haven't met people genuinely far down the spiral. It's not what they say to me which matters, but what it indicates about what they are saying to themselves and what that's doing to their own mind which matters.
Can you not genuinely see that a "philosophy" which leads you to believe that someone posting as I do on an internet board makes you the absolute equivalent of Hitler (because you are denying God and thus leaving the world Evil) is a phenominally damaging process to one's own mental health? It only promises him MORE not LESS suffering. And to those few people who might remain close to him. At best. At worst, we have another religious lunatic harassing people on the streets because, by not listening to him, they allow the massacres he sits and watches obsessively on the news every day to continue occuring.

And how does this really effect your life?

It doesn't. It affects his. And eventually, perhaps some third party.

You gave LG a great deal of power, you believe he controls you? He has some power over you to “make” you feel things?

Nope. He has no power at all. That's what's driving him mad... he knows he can't do what he says, but he has to believe that he can because he can't face the world without his emotional crutch of a "philosophy". Nobody passes the test of time however, and the world will break him in the end. I repeat again, I'm arguing from within his own logical framework, and using that to point out that his own ideas are just increasing his own mental anguish, and offers him no way out except ever more impotence in the face of evil.

My only personal involvement is that I just don't like arrogant and egotistical liars.

There is a tab button if he bothers you just tab by and don’t read him he can not force you to he can not force you to do anything.

I state again you clearly have no real experience of true human interactions. Conversation is very, very easy to disrupt if you are determined... Indeed, I refer you again to the above Google search where you can see just how many times Lifegazer has been banned for taking over conversations with his own neurosis. He cannot force me or anyone else to convert to his nonsense, but he can cram it almost everywhere, and indeed he is doing so.

But that's not why I reply to him. I reply for my own reasons, as should be now apparent.

I will not comment on this but will just say there is no limit to what I will give but I can only speak for myself as you can only do the same. I am sure if your brother had a choice he would choose not to be autistic I am sure his goal is not to bother anyone.

No one chooses such. But no one has a free choice as to how to deal with those unfortunates, either. The laws of consequence govern all. I could sit back and let him do as he pleases... he'd probably be dead now if I had though, and certainly a lot of people around him would carry more scars and own less. True love for someone isn't about compassion... It's about discipline and commitment. In a hard world, even love has to be hard too at times simply to survive. It's not the world I'd prefer, but it's the one I have to survive in myself; so I don't have much room for compassion.

I tell no one what to do or what to believe, if I did I would be like LG right?

No, you'd be like LG if you told people not only what to believe, but what it is they supposedly actually believe themselves, and persuaded yourself that this was in fact the truth. And then changed your beliefs again a few minutes later, and now that new belief is and always was the truth. I've not just been Hitler, but I've also argued against LG because I'm in fact scared he's right, and because I'm just making jokes...

It is within human nature to kill, to lie, to steal etc I seek to do none of these things.

Good. But sometimes you fail in this way, maybe not killing but with small lies, all the same... as indeed do I, and do all. This is reality, and there are no saints.

Be well my friend.

And you too. I merely disagree with you about what the pre-requisite of "wellness" is... to be well in this world is not always to be compassionate or tolerant.

 

[Z]

Originally posted by Pahansiri His “punishment” has been dealt out him since age 5 when he was first taken. As I said I agree he should be in jail and he also says he wishes to be. BUT to execute him and that was my point of the statement as you know is fully and totally wrong and changes nothing and deters nothing.

Not at all. You cannot be punished before a crime. A lousy past does not excuse crime.

Executions do act as deterrents when the government is consistent and public with said deterrents. I would have all executions be publicly broadcast. I would have them shown in schools and on the streets. And no gas, either - electrocution. Hanging. Dismemberment. Horrible punishments - the potentials thus established would deter crime more effectively.

However, fear of death is a deterrent. Yes, there is more crime than ever - but there are, proportionally, many more people than ever, and proportionally less crime than ever.

With respect to say his “punishment becomes a deterrent potential for future individuals” simply is not based in any fact. If this were the case by this time after thousands of years punishing sex offender or murders or what be it there would be no more of them. This is clearly not the case.

Deterrent does not imply cure. Rather, it furthers the potentials against criminal behavior. Preferably, we would tackle crime from the other end - curing our society of the ills that generate criminals in the first place. But barring that, increasing the fear of committing crime - the severity of consequences - has a notable deterrent effect.

Capital punishment changes nothing it does not stop anyone from doing the same things but the person killed. This man has been punished every day from age 5. The cost of Capital punishment is many times greater then keeping people in jail for life, as many believe it is cheaper, it is not as if that should matter.

You are saying that hanging and burying a man is more expensive than supporting the same man, providing him food, shelter, medicine, recreation, etc. for twenty, thirty, or more years? I'd like to see your figures, please.

But you said the capital punishment would deter and we have been doing it for thousands of years yet you say we have more crime then ever, as you see it does not work.

Non-sequitur. For thousands of years, we haven't had a singular, stable government, stable laws, consistant punishments, etc. If we had, an effect might be noticable as it would have had longer to take root in the public mind; but in our higgledy-piggledy mish-mash of societies, NOTHING has had time to fully take effect.

Plus, capital punishments aren't public enough. But there is a noticable deterrent effect.

Many cases of people executed only to be proven innocent later have occurred and with improved DNA who knows how many were innocent. In such cases it is us who are the murderers.

Proportionally, a very small number have been proven innocent. More have been shown that the evidence was inconclusive, which doesn't necessarily mean innocent, but does mean not clearly guilty. Nevertheless, such errors are the responsibility of the court systems. If found guilty, and executed, oh well. Errors happen.

What do we say to their loved ones “ oops”?

Oops.

And I respect that. But for me I believe if you were fallacy convicted, set up or if it was a loved on of yours who may have even really done such a crime it would be far harder to say it is a good thing.

Not at all. If my son committed murder, I'd be the first calling for capital punishment.

I also believe that if we say to kill is wrong then to kill is wrong.

Since that's not what I'm saying... I say it is right to kill at times, and wrong to kill at times. That morality is grey, not black or white.

[quote[Have you ever been abused. Rapped, beaten, tortured etc? I hope not may I ask if your child is taken at 5 ( hope this never happens to you or anyone) and all the same things happen to him/her that happened to this man. Years latter you find him/her and they have killed as this man did will you stand in court and tell the judge you believe your child should die?[/quote]

Never been 'rapped'... he he he.

And I've been very fortunate. But that doesn't mean I might not commit a crime. And if I had been abused as you ask, it doesn't excuse me for committing a crime. If this happened to my son, I would be the first to call for his execution, in fact.

Blood relation changes nothing. Love changes nothing. If my son so descended into his base desires as to commit crimes, he is put down like a rabid animal. If a pet goes wild and attacks my family, I have it put down. Same with humans.

[/quote]LG is not Jim Jones, or David Koresh or any such.[/quote]

Neither were they at this stage.

Well, you believe your way, I'll believe mine. But I'm a wolf, after all, and wolves strike when they sense danger - or run, if the danger's too great.

That is what Hitler said when he burned books, that is what many governments have said as they take rights to “protect” you.

And they were right, within the paradigm of their beliefs. What's your point?

I want to keep the world safe from ignorance, so within the paradigm of my belief, it is right to prevent someone from stopping scientists and technology.

Come on. Shall we just line up everyone you do not agree with and shoot them just incase they do something?

An excessive response. Did I suggest shooting LG? No. I did suggest presenting suitable counter-evidence so that people don't accept his claims without realizing ALL that can be said about them.

And based on your own excessive responses, I suggest you take a moment, breathe, and clear your own emotional responses.

I'm all for different points of view. But an opinion that goes against fact is wrong and must be shown as such.

The rest of your post, since it has descended into excessive portrayals of my own point of view, will not be discussed by me. I don't want to kill those who don't agree with me, nor do I wish to suppress their freedoms - nor do I wish them to suppress mine. But I also do not wish to be propelled into a dark age where science is once again shunned and technology banned. And lg is always welcome to say anything. He just needs to understand that when he says something completely illogical or wrong, I will be there to demonstrate his fallacy.

Blessings.

 

[P.S.A.]

Up late doing stuff; two quick points..

Phantsy, please clear your PM box.

Zaary, I'm sure he can answer you for himself, but when you say

You are saying that hanging and burying a man is more expensive than supporting the same man, providing him food, shelter, medicine, recreation, etc. for twenty, thirty, or more years? I'd like to see your figures, please.

He is actually correct, at least with regards to the way the US system currently works; because they keep people on death row for twenty, thirty or more years, paying both the costs of supporting him for that time, and the various legal fees etc for the endless challenges over those years. Which is only fair, because you have to allow time for miscarriages of justice to be revealed and so on...

But as I said, I'm not really that interested in serious debate, so I shall stop there

 

[wraith]

The same conflict exists, because there is a central, absolute reference frame.

What conflict? I'm not doing things faster than light.