You must never leave the house.
Ichthus. I’m not from this universe.
I resurrected an entire planet personally. That’s how good my karma is. I also did a memory wipe of most its destruction to save you the trauma.
You’ll remember when you enter your soul completely again.
My mind is too teeny tiny to enter my soul again. It just falls right out my eye sockets. So. Oh well.
Ichthus. I really don’t think you understand. I resurrected this world because I like trees and weather. I’m the one who sent the cold front to California.
I’m the one who made sure all your loved ones are still there in your transition period.
You’re not alive anymore, you’re dead.
I resurrected a planet Ichthus…
I’m not from your universe.
Those balloons that got shot down. Yours, right?
It’s the thought that counts.
But counts what, though, Ec? Counts what?
Nah. I don’t deal with politics. In fact, I sadly watch it. When I brought people back, I didn’t change them.
My humble appearance here is making good skies for people.
I remember trying to get a girl interested in me and I used two nights to make beautiful skies for her.
My wealth, if you could call it that is complete control of spirits …. But that’s no wealth at all. It’s empty.
But I do like making skies.
I like skies. And having full control of my spirit. Not that it has anything to do with anything.
NOW: consenting
PAST/FUTURE: manufacturing or reverse-engineering consent
ETERNAL: conditions for the possibility of consent
I began this thread inquiring into How and Why Magnus and Peacegirl believe and state as they do, about Determinism.
Magnus mostly balked and was too afraid to demonstrate his own reasoning and understanding of his Determination.
Peacegirl stepped-up, and despite her countless errors and simplicity, at least she showed Courage. So in that area, I appreciate and respect peacegirl’s responses. I cannot respect a mind like Magnus’, who is quite frankly scared of exposure when it comes to Philosophy and this topic of Determinism.
I’m going to recover most of what has been debated; because I don’t see Peacegirl making any progress beyond this point as she retreated to repeating herself. This will be my understanding of her position thus far. Number one, she claims not to be ‘Christian’. I find this hard to believe, as her reasoning, rationalization, and compulsion of moral belief, all demonstrate to me a thoroughly Abrahamic and Christian origin or ‘mentality’. It’s a pattern that I detect in most Christians I’ve ever interacted with. Just recently, PG suggested that “Christians believe in Free-Will”. Well, not really. Christians have her mentality, and she theirs, on the topic of Freedom, and it goes like this… Give yourself to God, then, and ONLY then, after you are a complete slave, complete submission, completely subject to God and their “Divine Faith” only after your emasculation, removal of your pride, humiliation do you get to “be Free”. And it’s hypothetical. They never show this supposed ‘Freedom’. They never argue on its behalf. PG slightly altered this Christian mentality, with her suggestion that she repeated a dozen times: “Don’t you want to know how this works (after you submit to her Author)?” No, I don’t want to know, because I already know. I’ve heard it literally thousands of times throughout my life. It’s the same Con. It’s the same Scam. It’s the same Lie. And that’s exactly what it is, a Lie.
Why would anybody need to give up their Freedom, their Free-Will in life… in order to “be Free”??? That’s ridiculous.
So how does PG ‘determine’ the world? What is her understanding and position relative to Determinism? Like most on this forum, she thinks she knows, but she doesn’t have a clue. Her constant, ruthless dedication to her precious author, is the key here. She is not her own Authority. She will never be her own Authority in life. Because she is convinced, like most females, that it is impossible for her. Maybe it’s a female gene that makes women this way—allergic to self-responsibility, self-accountability, Morality. They are not Moral Agents. They are not their own ‘Individual’. No Autonomy. No Agency. No Authority. This is the reason and compulsion for the constant deferrals. I pointed-out how she’s using her author, Men, as her shield. This is something 100% of women do. I’ve not yet a woman in my lifetime who confronts and embraces Self-Autonomy. This might be with how the female brain identifies and associates Her-Self. Females may see ‘Self’ as a social identity, as a group. So, in her “Group-mind”, she cannot identify or recognize herself as an Individual, as a single unit, as “One”. Her “self” is a We. Her “self” is a group, a collection, probably of family members and closest confidants. Men have a different compulsion, striving and competing for individual-recognition and distinction.
It is what it is. If this is something impossible for females, then so be it. Let them Defer-defer-defer-defer their Autonomy in life over to men. Let men be their shields, their protectors, their guardians. This is why females are so drawn to Christianity, Arahamism, Mass Religions. They are drawn to Gravity of society. They do not actually, ever, really resist or go against Society. They do not go against the Popular. At least, not in any way comparable to Man.
How is THAT determined? Peacegirl gives her Autonomy in life, over to others, to men whom her instincts guide her, to recognize as ‘Above’ her intellect and ability. She has chosen some sorry excuse of an “Author”, whom she cannot even represent or really defend. So I won’t get into that. Frankly, I don’t give a shit of this Author of her obsession. I wanted to know what she had to say and think, about Determinism. Her endless accusations of “you just don’t understand!” were simple projections. She doesn’t understand. This is why she cannot present her own rationalization. Because it’s not hers! It’s somebody else’s!
Somebody else is ‘Determining’ her existence! She is dominated, completely!
Of course, to her, “Freedom”, “Free-Will”, “Choice” are all illusions. She doesn’t know what it means, to take responsibility for herself as an Individual. I doubt she will ever know this. I doubt she has the physical-mental attributes to do so. Maybe it’s her woman brain? Probably.
Don’t mistake this for an attack. It’s not an attack. Again, like I said, I respect her more than Magnus, because at least she has courage in her ignorance and simplicity. And courage is always a superior trait than fear, in the face of these most philosophically important matters.
I want to point-out Peacegirl’s constant appeals to Morality, and an underlying Moral objective. I repeated this to her at least four times throughout this thread. And each time, she was oblivious to her own compulsion. This demonstrated to me that she is not Self-conscious. She doesn’t know what she’s doing. She doesn’t realize that she has put her Moral system underneath her premises, when it comes to Free-Will, Determinism, and Choice. So this proves to me, that her ideal of “Choice” is an “Illusion” in every case other than what could agree to her moral premises, which are ‘hidden’ from herself. So she doesn’t know how to rationalize Choice. “Choices”, to her, are only possible, when they align with the morality that she premised, yet is oblivious to. This means, that Choice seems like a random event to her. She doesn’t know why people Choose as they do. She can’t explain it. It mystifies her. “Why would somebody choose other than what is Good”?
(Because she doesn’t know what Good even is)
Again, I don’t want my criticisms to come off as “personal attacks”, although perhaps it cannot be avoided. Because what is more ‘personal’ than your individual autonomy in life, your capability to Decide, to Act, to Choose, to engage your Free-Will with Existence …as-if you had a Choice in the matter, right?
You have no choice, except to have Choice! You must Choose. And if you do not, others will Choose for you. Your life will be somebody else’s. Your life will not be your own.
So that is how, THAT is determined.
Wait, peacegirl is not Christian? Why in the world is she so obsessed with Christian propaganda about evolution then?
Something seems fishy… (Pun not intended)
She said as much, at least (last page):
It’s propaganda to say that questioning evolution (by for example observing there’s no fossils of in-between species) is christian propaganda.
About determination - it needs to work both ways to work at all, the scientist mind determines that the world is deterministic. The learning mind determines that there is a relation between events.
An indeterminate mind can not observe deterministic structures in proceedings.
I had hoped that these debates would turn toward the direction of how people make Determinations, and the difference of what it means to have an ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ Determination. The problem with Abrahamic religions is that it conveniently hides external Authority, which people (like PG) use as their psychological defense mechanisms. It’s far worse when they imply that these external Determinations “come from God” or are divinely inspired …when they’re nothing more than coping mechanisms. Regardless, the dim-witted don’t really know the difference between external authority and divine inspiration. This is why they are quick to destroy ‘Determinism’ altogether as a ruse, an illusion, or as PG argues, choice doesn’t exist at all.
Whoa, I never ever claimed the slaughterhouse is an illusion. Animals get slaughtered. I bear witness (but maybe not enough to meet your definition) by signing petitions that demand cruel practices of any kind be stopped. Stop pegging me as a child just because I am not a vegan. 
Where did I repeat myself that is preventing any progress? Please be specific. You conveniently dodge my questions. Have you ever swatted a fly and killed it? Have you ever purposely stepped on an ant? I am not being facetious. Please don’t skip the questions that question your worldview. That would be disingenuous.
I don’t have to be Christian to be concerned about ethical issues.
No you don’t. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. I never mentioned complete submission in order to be free. You are jumping the gun AGAIN.
It is not ridiculous. We have to acknowledge our true nature (which is not free) in order to EXTEND this knowledge to see where it leads. And it leads to amazing things, if you would just stop projecting your preconceived ideas on the subject.
Why do you resent me just because this author has made a discovery that I refer to? This has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING FEMALE. 
You have it all wrong. This is a problem with definition ONLY. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. You would be more desiring to listen if you understood what “no free will” means in so far as our attainment of world peace. This is serious or I wouldn’t care to engage.
Tell me, have you have read a book that you wanted to pass on, and referred to it?
Good try! :-"
Again, you got it all wrong. No one is giving up their autonomy (their individuation) because their will is not free. We can’t move forward when and until you understand the definition of determinism I am sharing. Otherwise, you will continue to fight me.
Yes, let’s get into that since you brought it up. How have I chosen a sorry excuse of an author when you don’t know anything about him? You just don’t like his claims about determinism. This is so lame.
I know you don’t give a shit about this Author, because you feel threatened. There is no reason to be.
I wouldn’t say “you don’t understand” if you gave me something to see that “you do understand.” You are just making up stories about my psychopathy that are completely fabricated.
Stop making women weaklings. I take full responsibility for myself even though my will is not free, never was, and never will be.
I have courage because I know what the author has discovered and I won’t back down.
How can that be true when morality is subjective based on individual circumstance?
You are so off base I don’t know where to begin. The author explained that morality is a judgment by others. What is moral to one is not moral to another, yet we can all agree that each of us can call morality that which we don’t want done to ourselves. I don’t want to get killed by a passing motorist who is on a rampage. I think there is a common denominator in this regard.
Good is a subjective term. What is good to me may not be good to you.
No one is choosing for me. My life is not somebody else’s just because my will is not free.
That is NOT HOW IT IS DETERMINED. NO ONE OR NO THING is taking away your right or your capability to decide, to act, to choose, or to engage. I said it once and I will say again that your idea of determinism is flawed, and as long as you hold this definition in mind, you will reject anything I have to say.
Let’s face it this is a philosophic question and not at all an easy one. The statement I made that it’s two ways or no way is complex enough if you think about it.
We don’t know what the mind is in relation to the cosmos. It seems to be a mirror of it and has to be to make sense. A mind that doesn’t mirror its environment is insane. I know from experience. Psychosis is a state where determination is not a two way thing, and the “insights” and visions permitted then are endless and immense as this counterbalance of mind and cosmos gives limits, where these are gone, the mind perceives essentially itself and begins to “eat itself”.
On the main subject, we can state with certainty that there are significant parts of existence that respond to deterministic models, but specifically those models afforded by the scientific method, as opposed to for example Aristotelean method, with its quite infertile a priori logical moulds to which only simple abstractions apply and not physical earthly experiential reality which is far “weirder”, “likes to hide”.
Determinism as we now know it isnt intuitive, it took Machiavelli and Francis Bacon to delve it from the randomness of apparent existence. Though the very basic form of physical determinism was recorded by Archimedes, whose insight into proportional
displacement seems to me metaphysically the same as Newton’s primary law.
Urwrong,
You kinda articulated this when profiling but not really…
Let’s clarify an overarching theme in its own articulation.
PG and her author define determinism as peace.
You went into HER subjugation aspect but didn’t clarify her dominance attemp.
“If you’d just all obey me everything would be peace”
The author being male was trying to create a cult of dominance to get laid …. Standard male stuff.
Basically, you have the author declaring himself peace in existence and you have a woman follower also declaring herself peace in existence (if only you obey them).
There are BILLIONS of beings where if we just did what they told us to do, life would be better here.
No doubt about it.
This argument of PG doesn’t acknowledge a merit system either. “Just obey me and there will be peace even if you don’t like it, I’m the one who deserves it more, because my commands are peace.”
I’d venture to guess the author tried to use this to compel women against their desire to suck his dick for the “peace”. Lol!!!
But it’s also not funny as well.
Your analysis was on her subservience while avoiding the shadow side of her domineering nature….
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Ecmandu: Unwrong, you kinda articulated this when profiling but not really…
Let’s clarify an overarching theme in its own articulation.
PG and her author define determinism as peace.
Peacegirl: Wrong!!!
Ecmandu: You went into HER subjugation aspect but didn’t clarify her dominance attemp.
“If you’d just all obey me everything would be peace”
The author being male was trying to create a cult of dominance to get laid …. Standard male stuff.
Peacegirl: OMG, what projection!
Ecmandu: Basically, you have the author declaring himself peace in existence and you have a woman follower also declaring herself peace in existence (if only you obey them).
Peacegirl: You’re worse than Unwrong in your conjectures and speculations. No one is asking anyone to obey Ecmandu.
Ecmandu: There are BILLIONS of beings where if we just did what they told us to do, life would be better here.
No doubt about it.
Peacegirl: This has nothing to do with telling one what to do.
Ecmandu: This argument of PG doesn’t acknowledge a merit system either. “Just obey me and there will be peace even if you don’t like it, I’m the one who deserves it more, because my commands are peace.”
Peacegirl: This is what you concluded from my posts?
Ecmandu: I’d venture to guess the author tried to use this to compel women against their desire to suck his dick for the “peace”. Lol!!!
But it’s also not funny as well.
Your analysis was on her subservience while avoiding the shadow side of her domineering nature….
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Peacegirl: This just shows me how a lack of understanding can lead to some crazy ideas. There is no mention of dominance or control or being forced or manipulated to do anything against anyone’s will. THERE IS NO CONSENT VIOLATION! How many more times do I have to say this for you to hear me??
This just shows me how lack of understanding can lead to some crazy ideas. There is no mention of dominance or control or being forced to do anything against one’s will. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. How many more times do I have to say this for you to hear me???
[/quote]
———————————
———————————
PG. this is fucking insane.
You define cosmic peace as the TRUE belief in determinism.
Determinism being that we all forgive each other, which means we don’t harm each other.
If determinism were peace and everything was determined, everything would already be peace!!!
That’s what you don’t get about your argument…
If only you’d just believe everything was determined, peace in all the cosmos…
That’s a contraction of the idea that everything is determined already (we’d already be in peace without a choice).
So obviously not everything is determined and you just admitted to freewill!!!
ooooooooo it’s like thermodynamics of relationships. If everything were actually fatalistically determined with no real beginning (first blow?), M.A.D. or an unending cold war would already be the case…
So there’s that 