RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones

RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/11/2010 8:55:28 PM)
People take work where they can make a living. Few have the rare ability, and a big enough wallet, to follow their passions. Someone can be passionate about their work and be mediocre at it. I work as a waitress because its a skill that i have, the ability to do it well and quickly, and a wit that my customers love. I am far from passionate about it. It pays the bills. My passion is nursing, something i had to leave because of burnout. I blame no one but myself, i did it to myself. But, even then, my passion and the 30 an hour i was making wasnt enough to overcome the hives and panic attacks i would develop on the way to work. I have been given the opportunity to become a manager at the restaurant i work at now. And i refuse to take it, even though it would be a big income boost. I dont want it, i dont need the added stress, nor is it something i want to do long term. Money isnt always an incentive... nor is a passion about what you are doing. But why should i, as a server, make the same amount of money as a manager simply because someone believes that the economy should reward me simply for being a human?

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 12:53:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl lol.... she is paraphrasing the principal, not quoting it. [8\|] well, if you're getting all critical thinker on me, then...

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 1:04:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets put it this way. If i paid a chef 25 an hour, and a line cook 25 an hour... what incentive would the line cook have to become better and what incentive would the chef have to stay better? Oh, I understand how it works now. When I was kid, I played hockey because I bloody loved to. Didn't matter I wasn't being paid. Don't you not think that if people were allowed to 'work' at jobs/careers that they loved rather than taking work where they can or have to because of 'variables of luck or whathaveyou getting in the way', that this problem of incentive or 'being better' would be satisfied simply because they are doing what they love, following their passion. Consider you for example. You made x amount of dollars (can I assume doing what you love?) for x amount of years being paid for example $25 an hour. You were happy then right, because your wage was in pace with economic conditions, yes? Your needing to be paid more down the road had nothing to do with your incentive to be better at what you do, it was and is directly related to economic conditions in flux (rising). You didn't need to make more money so you felt more incentive, you needed more to keep up with inflation. Presumably under this scenario, that line cook is doing/learning what he loves, following his passion. That is his/her incentive. The scenario you're talking about serves the noble lie, that someone at the top should profit and profit a hell of a lot more than you. It has some merit in seeding and reseeding future jobs and technology, but not to a point where one person is living in excess, while you struggle. Thats the way it is, I know but not the way it has to be. I was going to start countering this, but it descended into incoherence. Could you maybe rewrite this fucker? I'm not even counting the 'don't you not think' double negative, I understood what you meant there... At least I don't think I didn't. I'd ask leading questions, but I don't think it would help. Just find the lead, wherever you buried it in here, dig it up and put it at the top. Then put descending items of relevance.

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 1:40:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu Yep, I can buy enlightened self interest. Can you? I doubt we'd agree on the definition. quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu No. Are they hurting? No. Although Gates has donated over half his fortune alone, he's still the richest man on earth. Or rather, he is again the richest man on earth; coupla people had him beat for a while. But the rest of the fortune so he's been putting into initiatives like demolishing malaria, improving our schools (and he's done fuckin' amazing things along those lines, watch some of the TED talks on it), and of course getting computers into every library. Warren Buffet threw his money into the Gates ring, almost doubling the charitable fund. The Waltons have a charitable fund of 1.9 billion, and they're doing some good things with 'Make A Wish'. That Mexican guy is redefining the poverty line in his fuckin' country. Upwards. He also has his fingers in getting better roads, better infrastructure for basic services, and rumor has it he's been throwing money around hard to crack down on police corruption and improve public safety. Though such efforts are almost always suspicious to the conspiracy-minded, so maybe I shouldn't have brought up that example. Oprah... it's motherfuckin' Oprah. Come on. News anchor makes really good. Her whole schtick is taking her money her empire and 'improving lives'. According to the numbers, she does a good job. That's what I was referencing. quote: Bullshit. This is at best assumption, misleading and precluded with calling me a moron to set up my failing in your estimation to validate calling me a moron. You've estimated and assumed incorrectly. But I still like you. <this position held for finger pointing smiley> No it wasn't assumption. I was giving an example of what I could assume, justifiably, if I were to take your words at face value. I was essentially sayin' that if you're gonna play my motherfuckin' game, then be careful how I could read into your words. Tho you don't seem to be reading me very well either, so it's like double the stupid. Your eyes are crossed and your typing fingers tied in knots. That was my point. quote: I do not consider people who a few million dollars to be Nobles, even thought they too have the advantage as well as the perks that go with it. I don't even consider bill Gates a Noble, just a guy who buys into the lie, spouts the eugenic dogma and generally plays the Noble organ like the monkey he is. No, it seems like you consider a 'Noble' to be some sorta theoretical construct, like a platonic ideal of The Man. (eugenic dogma? Whoa nelly. NEW topic right there. Back to this tho) Which gives the motherfuckin' lie to this next bit -- quote: I owned 2 business, both tandem assets, relying on each other. I doubled my gross in each of the first 3 yrs, had 4 employees (2 of them friends) who were labor. (they had equal shares in profit after expenses and what I called 'seed' money used for further growth. Not big business but growing. (don't answer these next questions, I honestly don't care. Just realize what I think when I see this.) 'Doubling your gross' means nothing. Did you double 500k in sales, or just 5k? Did you sell 500k worth of product for 400k 'gross'? So these two businesses. How much work did you put into the organizational setup? You had two, so. Was that asset protection thinking, or did you actually have two lines of products/services with different organizational requirements? Equal shares in profit. The way you're using that phrase I don't even think you know how that works. If you've got profit that you want to share, you avoid sharing it and just pay them as employees an equivalent amount, so that you can balance the taxes on profits with expenses, or you run into double taxation when you don't need to. Depending on state, ish. There are subtleties, but that's the usual approach for a small business that doesn't want to get eaten alive. quote: An accident ended all that. An accident that took 5 years of my life away. I hadn't earned enough to hire/train someone qualified with business acumen to take over in the remote ( I thought it was remote ) possibility I wasn't able to perform those tasks. My bad. Crumble. Well no fucking wonder, you were giving away all your profits! You need to keep much more than you give to your employees for situations exactly like this. You weren't just providing a check, you were responsible for maintaining your business - no one else. The fact that you didn't made you a worse employer than one who took the long view. quote: I don't doubt that. I wouldn't even argue to what extent they spread the wealth. Actually it bothers me not to but feck it, not relevant. ...ok, fuck it.

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 2:57:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu I get that and that is my point. Missing a leg, missing the wired brain that eats up what's being drilled in, missing the muscles, missing whatever, shouldn't be a reason to also cripple opportunity and or payment for whatever they can do with their better individual talents that they do possess. This is a nice way to think, and frankly, I'd prefer to give opportunities to whoever can take advantage of them. However. hmmmm.... this is gonna be tough to explain. But try this. It's very easy to say that we should help everyone, until you realize exactly how big the problem is. If you're gonna go for 100% assisted opportunity, trying to carry everyone that can't stand on their own and let them contribute whatever they may, then the problem becomes far bigger than any civic structure invented could handle. Start with a simple scenario. You've got 5 guys on a desert island with limited water and shitty fishing. The guys working as hard as they can, can only produce food to feed 4 1/2. One guy is crippled and can't help fish. Another guy needs to spend most of his time through the day helping the cripple; which brings the available production down to feeding only 3 and 1/2 guys. If this situation continues, in this purely hypothetical situation, the constraints would suggest that someone's going to die, sooner or later. Should someone give up their time and food to maintain the cripple? Hint: the 1/2 is purely a red herring. It could be 3/5s, or even 4/5ths; these are math constructs and not real people. But it illustrates a situation where we have more than we need as a society for the majority of productive workers, but still less that what it'd take to get everybody on their feet (whether they like it or not.) As a society, the real costs are hidden, though. * There's abuse of the system; money going where it shouldn't; people claiming handouts they don't deserve. * There's disincentive to succeed. This is a real concern, not a lie to justify capitalism. Sometimes people get stuck in a rut and need a reminder to get out of it. And it exists on an organizational level, too; almost worse, in fact, because it's impersonal. If competition weren't driven to outperform, organizations get slack real fast. I'm not just talking business, but entities of all kinds, government, religious, what have you. We've got a couple thousand years of examples on that. * There's opportunity cost. What could have been done with that money and effort if it were still in the hands of the original owners, for example. * And finally, there's real cost. In time, organization, information, and money. So you hafta pick your battles. And that's what we do. Nobody's pulling any strings around here. Maybe in some parts of the world, but not to my part of it. quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu Please refer to previous post on defining Nobles. I also have noting against Americans, how they work or how they produce. I have lived there, seen it with my own eyes, and have relatives there. They do what they have to do within the system. More importantly I am not here to chastise Americans, I'm not anti american nor pro american. If there are any real Nobles in America, I wouldn't name the few I thought there were. I think it evokes the 'conspiracy bullshit' and that is far from my intentions. That they exist or not is irrelevant. That the Noble lie and its extensions and variances still exist and still affect how we treat and reward each other is what I am on about here. Oookay. So, maybe you're talking about somewhere that this really is a problem? As long as you're not including me and mine in this, then I'm open to hearing what you have to say. quote: I don't subscribe to thinking that the majority of people on the planet want to be lazy or slobs as a career choice. Quite the reverse. True enough. Honestly, the biggest issue I've noted with doing business in other countries is systemic corruption. It may be a tourist view; and I've always assumed it was, really. But I've heard a lot of backroom bitchin about how Indians do business, or Brazilians, or x or y. China is potluck; it almost seems regional, like some entire fucking geographical segments are more honest than others. Oddly, never heard any complaints about Mexicans. Despite their reputation, doing business with them seems to work out pretty well. Which could also be a tourist view. But really, I've never given water to any of these impressions, just try to take people as individuals. Are you saying that your experiences give these complaints more credit than I have? quote: You work with the system. I've done the same. Work with it, until I realized there were other ways, even if they didn't affect the entire world and change the planet. Milk the system so you can affect change no matter how small. ...if you regard the system as an enemy, I could see that point of view. But to be honest, I really don't. I've had parts of the system bend over backwards to help me, and other parts seemed to go out of their way to fuck me sideways. But in both cases I scratched under the surface and found good people doing their jobs, and the jobs were worthy of doing. Plenty of shit ain't right around here, but frankly, the honest, hopeful and helpful outnumber the dicks by a factor of yes, IME. Maybe you had a different experience. And I ain't talkin' about other whitebread Mayflower boys neither. Just people. quote: I assume you're talking about infrastructure and if so I would debate your assertion that 'what their willing to pay for it' isn't quite the same as an individual would. Government waste and stupidity is a mountain of grief. I have worked with government (contracting), and the opportunity to take advantage of their 'standard' practices is laughable and I have told them so. They still do it of course. The public wants cheap so they get it. You probably know about the 'low bidder process'? A process that constantly beats itself to death because it doesn't demand excellence, promotes poor quality then re-feeds itself in repair costs that aren't then 'bid out' It ends up costing the public more but they don't see it because it's buried in 'other items' on the budget.. I do agree with the premise that price is what people are willing to pay in the private sector though. See, now you're bitchin on my wavelength. I can get behind this. On a positive note, there's been some recent reforms on this... I had to deal with this recently, worked for an electronics manufacturer that was doing government contracts, and had to wire some of the data services. Lots of innovations coming along... glacially, but coming. quote: This interests me as a global, even regional economic model. I draw comparisons with body economy and nature economy mostly because it's self sustaining and efficient when properly used. Humans I think tend to mess it up pretty well and feck with the natural balance but we're trainable so there's hope. I'm no Hopi but I understand the wisdom in a self sustaining economy. A body needs exercise, needs food. When you over or under exercise it, it begins to fail. And every body has it's own threshold of tolerance. Analogous is your assertion of profit and loss as a body. It's all about balance. Excess and lack are damaging, just as they are in finance. Ok. quote: It amazes me that we don't think along these lines as it pertains to finance. Maybe someone has, you'll correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly will. That's exactly the metaphor people who talk about this stuff use. At least in business. In civic units, not so much, but it's there. I've got a buddy who does a lot of grassroots stuff, I'll ask him how much they discuss politics in biomimicry terms. Which reminds me, if you dig that kind of thing then go here. http://www.asknature.org/ It's tagline is "a design discipline that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies." Fun stuff. quote: Some people have way to much fucking money and it's throwing the world out of balance. See, this just demonstrates a lack of knowledge in regards to how money works. Imagine you've got two guys. One's a really good hunter and has all this food. The other one has fuckloads of pretty paper slips. Who do you think actually has more wealth? Money is self-correcting, all other factors being equal. If person A has so much more of it than anyone else, and persons B,C,D, and F only have a little, but one's a farmer, one's a carpenter, one's a barrel maker, etc... then B,C,D will find other ways to negotiate for services and person A is just out in the cold. In a more robust economy, Mr. Moneybags keeping all of his money hidden away means that the money everyone else has is more valuable. It buys more. But if Moneybags goes on a spending spree, then inflation drives prices through the roof. Now there are other forms of wealth; land, produce, etc. But in the form of money it creates a system that makes it very difficult for excess to imbalance - which is part of the reason why people still use it. As to other forms of wealth, in extreme cases it's possible for individuals to cause abuse. Land ownership especially; Railroad barons are a historical example of this happening in America. This is generally where governments start to get involved, to redirect things before they get out of hand. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't; ours, for the most part, has done a fair job of holding the line.

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 7:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Money isnt always an incentive... nor is a passion about what you are doing. But why should i, as a server, make the same amount of money as a manager simply because someone believes that the economy should reward me simply for being a human? No offence but this could be almost anyone's story, complete with all the decisions you made. I don't say that to marginalize you either. The sad truth is that this present system teaches that being human isn't enough to be treated as fairly as the 'haves' who are quite factually humans as well. I'm not saying reward people for being human, I'm saying treat people humanely because we are ALL human. I wouldn't characterize all wealthy people as complete selfish nonsensitive asswipes; but there is a lot of them, as well as governments by and large, who because they do extremely wasteful things, leave a lot of mankind in the abyss, struggling to make ends meet. Is it their responsibility to care about others. Certainly is for government; yet they are among the worst and most careless, wasteful entities there are. It's a bad example for a government to show it's people. There is a better way and I think, when I present my ideas that you like most here, keep trying to see my ideas framed in the present system. In that view they will most certainly not work. One has to totally drop the old system, don't try to see how it works within the present system because that system sucks, its' too open to corruption, excess and abuse and constrains any new ideas. I know what you're saying about passion and incentive. There's a little more involved. For people that I know who do what love, the incentive is in the excellence of the product they produce and the smiles on the faces of their consumers. For them it isn't so much about the money, it's just a tool that supports the dream. They will teach anyone what they know, for free in fact, because they want most to improve the level of excellence in the work place and production. That's the passion I'm talking about. They will even teach folks for free outside the workplace. They are very tolerant people when it comes to staff (people, humans) and their problems in life. The one and only place they don't compromise is in their passion to put out the best shit they can. They will hire you, care that sometimes people are in the shit and if you are, take a week off, get your shit together, because you're only helpful in the process when you're at you're best. They don't mind paying for your justified absence either if what you contribute says, my passion is your passion. There could be some ego involved but I have no problem with ego. It's a good thing when someone says, that shit isn't going out there with my name on it unless it's been produced in excellence. This is the passion I'm talking about. It has it's own built incentives, (happy customers) it's own self sustaining elements (longevity in repeat business among others) and creates room to build upon because when shit is good, it fucking sells itself. Now, if the chef owns this business, yep he should get more, not because he deserves a Lexus though. He should get it because his whole business model is built on excellence and spreading it's inherent 'human worth' is what he/she is all about. His excess if you will is humanity and excellence, not profit. So, why should you as a server make a reasonably sane equal share as the manager makes. Your both in it together, producing the same product, whether you're behind the scenes or not. You said yourself, money isn't always the incentive and when you marginalize others, because thats what segmenting and distinguishing people by finance does. Unfortunately people equate income with self worth, a big problem in this society but hey the stigmatization, it's human and fed by the noble lie where some people deserve better. If you're garbage man for example, you're looked down upon and you start thinking I have to do better, meaning get another job that people don't stigmatize as unworthy... Well no you don't, when you're paid fairly, all you have do is do the best job you can. Being paid fairly takes away all that human tendency to degrade one's self worth and put self worth where it belongs, in the results of your job performance.

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 7:26:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox I'd ask leading questions, but I don't think it would help. Just find the lead, wherever you buried it in here, dig it up and put it at the top. Then put descending items of relevance. Isn't not done in my response to tazzy above, ..well ain't hopefully not. sentence)

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 8:56:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox No. Are they hurting? No. Although Gates has donated over half his fortune alone, he's still the richest man on earth. Or rather, he is again the richest man on earth; coupla people had him beat for a while. But the rest of the fortune so he's been putting into initiatives like demolishing malaria, improving our schools (and he's done fuckin' amazing things along those lines, watch some of the TED talks on it), and of course getting computers into every library. Love TED. well most of it ... Al Gore could die a bloody death in a meat grinder but hey...Found that site while researching memes, temes, genes. Some real progressive thinkers there. Bill Gates is an enigma to me. His shoveling money into eugenic related interests scares me. Don't get me wrong, I see the wisdom in planned parenthood given the number of fuckers pumping out kids like a soda fountain. The problem I have is that it's beginnings, mostly in eugenics lie in Hitler's old regime. I'm not even totally against the principle of eugenics, it just scares me that the nobles and or fuck head rich, use it or want it by entitlement. That too isn't so bad. How mankind makes itself better and who they use, is of little consequence, there's just always that little personal ego saying, hey what about me. His workplace model isn't the same as the old guard model and for that I give him some credit. He pays fairly for excellence as well, even if the product is breach-able. That is more a result of it's overwhelming use than any crap that Apple puts out about it being less breach-able. Put more Apples on the desks of the world and jackers are going to concentrate on finding where it can be breached. quote: Warren Buffet threw his money into the Gates ring, almost doubling the charitable fund. The Waltons have a charitable fund of 1.9 billion, and they're doing some good things with 'Make A Wish'. That Mexican guy is redefining the poverty line in his fuckin' country. Upwards. He also has his fingers in getting better roads, better infrastructure for basic services, and rumor has it he's been throwing money around hard to crack down on police corruption and improve public safety. Though such efforts are almost always suspicious to the conspiracy-minded, so maybe I shouldn't have brought up that example. Oprah... it's motherfuckin' Oprah. Come on. News anchor makes really good. Her whole schtick is taking her money her empire and 'improving lives'. According to the numbers, she does a good job. Buffet, smart guy. The mexican guy, I don't know him.. and Opy .. ahaha ... my problem with her is not so much her intent as the affects of robotizing the world with her new productions, Dr Phil your shitwagon with what I tell you.. blah blah .. think like me! think like me! He's not totally wrong, just intolerant of differences in people is my guess. If I think anything else it's along those lines of 'think like me', my world is the most wonderful place .. you can almost hear the flute... and since Oprah is of the same ilk .. well, I'm not ready to be one of those lemmings. I like that she works on self improvement and self worth, because the system undermines these things. The problem is that it won't go away, not the way I see it, no matter what she does, as long as there are still money rewards that create class distinction that. In the present system money, and position affect self worth, esteem, what ever you want to call it. She works her ass off, credit due, I just think she's working at the wrong end of the stick. quote: Bullshit. This is at best assumption, misleading and precluded with calling me a moron to set up my failing in your estimation to validate calling me a moron. You've estimated and assumed incorrectly. But I still like you. <this position held for finger pointing smiley> No it wasn't assumption. I was giving an example of what I could assume, justifiably, if I were to take your words at face value. I was essentially sayin' that if you're gonna play my motherfuckin' game, then be careful how I could read into your words. Tho you don't seem to be reading me very well either, so it's like double the stupid. Your eyes are crossed and your typing fingers tied in knots. That was my point. Bwah .. merry go round. I don't want to waste our time unraveling intentions. I do however have this problem with my fingers not hearing what my mind is saying. Fluking spell check should be able to catch missed words and sound alikes that get misplaced in spelling and be able to remove any nonsense that people rationalize in retort, when my critical eye knows better .. but meh ... brain flex. I'll grant you most of the rest of your post, most of which is about my failed plundering of the system. I have had two businesses since then, one sold for handsome profit, another only began, but opted out of it in 2004 and it was in the US. I saw the writing on the wall. The long decent into the abyss was evident. Anyway live and learn.

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 8:58:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu Yep, I can buy enlightened self interest. Can you? I doubt we'd agree on the definition. Try me, remove or affirm your doubt.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 10:13:13 AM)
" I hadn't earned enough to hire/train someone qualified with business acumen to take over in the remote ( I thought it was remote ) possibility I wasn't able to perform those tasks. My bad." 1) If HE had any business acumen he would have prepared for the eventuality. 2) It admittedly would have been hard to hire someone qualified to take over, since he/she would have been paid the same as the cleaning crew.

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 11:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DMFParadox quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu I get that and that is my point. Missing a leg, missing the wired brain that eats up what's being drilled in, missing the muscles, missing whatever, shouldn't be a reason to also cripple opportunity and or payment for whatever they can do with their better individual talents that they do possess. This is a nice way to think, and frankly, I'd prefer to give opportunities to whoever can take advantage of them. Well thanks. The problem I have with your preference is that it is indeed taking advantage. It works in the present system and a lot of times it manifests as greed and excess. But I'll read the next parts of your post and see where this goes. quote: However. hmmmm.... this is gonna be tough to explain. But try this. It's very easy to say that we should help everyone, until you realize exactly how big the problem is. If you're gonna go for 100% assisted opportunity, trying to carry everyone that can't stand on their own and let them contribute whatever they may, then the problem becomes far bigger than any civic structure invented could handle. Not assisted opportunity; but equal opportunity. Schooling man. Who can or can't afford it is problematic. I think we can agree if the foundation that supports your structure is not available to some, then the 'some' to whom it is unaffordable loses, actually becoming a burden, rather than a contribution, so society loses. This is all about wealth distribution. Regionally or otherwise. Tear down a couple of Trumps gaudy fucking rich only towers and one could build probably 20 trade schools with the money he wastes. Add few other dipshit rich people who erect monuments to their pride and I think there would be enough to build a few thousand free and public trade schools. And there are ways to fund them as well. Would it be assisted, I guess, quibbling over words. I just see it as providing equal opportunity. Fucking hell, we provide more education and trade opportunities to inmates and the incarcerated than we do regular citizens. It doesn't make sense to me to tell the public, we have no opportunities for you until you shoot someone's mother or steal a few cars. Back asswards. quote: Start with a simple scenario. You've got 5 guys on a desert island with limited water and shitty fishing. The guys working as hard as they can, can only produce food to feed 4 1/2. One guy is crippled and can't help fish. Another guy needs to spend most of his time through the day helping the cripple; which brings the available production down to feeding only 3 and 1/2 guys. If this situation continues, in this purely hypothetical situation, the constraints would suggest that someone's going to die, sooner or later. Should someone give up their time and food to maintain the cripple? Hint: the 1/2 is purely a red herring. It could be 3/5s, or even 4/5ths; these are math constructs and not real people. But it illustrates a situation where we have more than we need as a society for the majority of productive workers, but still less that what it'd take to get everybody on their feet (whether they like it or not.) I understand the scenario. What it does though is come from deficit posture. Presenting a situation where there just isn't enough to go around, I think is contrary to our reality. There is enough here, enough money, enough food, enough resources. It's just grossly disproportioned. I get what you're saying. I'm taking this out of context only to show that in the present system, you're right, not quibbling with how it works as is. Lot's of people are experinecing exactly what you say... and complaining about it.. so the system is wrong. quote: As a society, the real costs are hidden, though. * There's abuse of the system; money going where it shouldn't; people claiming handouts they don't deserve. * There's disincentive to succeed. This is a real concern, not a lie to justify capitalism. Sometimes people get stuck in a rut and need a reminder to get out of it. And it exists on an organizational level, too; almost worse, in fact, because it's impersonal. If competition weren't driven to outperform, organizations get slack real fast. I'm not just talking business, but entities of all kinds, government, religious, what have you. We've got a couple thousand years of examples on that. * There's opportunity cost. What could have been done with that money and effort if it were still in the hands of the original owners, for example. * And finally, there's real cost. In time, organization, information, and money. So you hafta pick your battles. And that's what we do. Nobody's pulling any strings around here. Maybe in some parts of the world, but not to my part of it. I don't disagree dude. Except that the system is pulling strings. quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu Please refer to previous post on defining Nobles. I also have noting against Americans, how they work or how they produce. I have lived there, seen it with my own eyes, and have relatives there. They do what they have to do within the system. More importantly I am not here to chastise Americans, I'm not anti american nor pro american. If there are any real Nobles in America, I wouldn't name the few I thought there were. I think it evokes the 'conspiracy bullshit' and that is far from my intentions. That they exist or not is irrelevant. That the Noble lie and its extensions and variances still exist and still affect how we treat and reward each other is what I am on about here. Oookay. So, maybe you're talking about somewhere that this really is a problem? As long as you're not including me and mine in this, then I'm open to hearing what you have to say. I'm not trying to make it personal. That's not easy where people and sensibilities are concerned. The problem is global, always has been, and even though it involves individuals, those individuals are just working the system. More power to them. I'm trying not to compartmentalize the problem either, it's not local, or county or state/province, nor country, nor continent. The problem is that there are some for whom entitlement is primary and some for whom lucking into that environment creates larger numbers of greedy bastards who just don't give shit. The system allows for it, the system is faulty, not the people, they just work with they have. quote: I don't subscribe to thinking that the majority of people on the planet want to be lazy or slobs as a career choice. Quite the reverse. True enough. Honestly, the biggest issue I've noted with doing business in other countries is systemic corruption. It may be a tourist view; and I've always assumed it was, really. But I've heard a lot of backroom bitchin about how Indians do business, or Brazilians, or x or y. China is potluck; it almost seems regional, like some entire fucking geographical segments are more honest than others. True. Some rising third world countries and others are being brought to market by some unscrupulous people, taught to not a give shit, just pump up the volume, rinse repeat. I'm not sure what their intent is; but it's like, in my opinion, putting more tentacles on an already unwieldy octopus. I have a lot of trouble blaming those people for taking these tasks because it boils down to their opportunities, which brings me back to fair equal opportunity, globally, that eschews all the greed shit and promotes self worth. I think where countries are concerned, there is an overall sense of self worth you can get by reading it's lowest class citizens. The opportunities you have to put food on the table are not the same as theirs. What some people do even in the US or Canada and elsewhere, when they don't see any opportunity they resort to crime. It too is an opportunity to put food on the table. Are we properly addressing the opportunities we provide? quote: Oddly, never heard any complaints about Mexicans. Despite their reputation, doing business with them seems to work out pretty well. Which could also be a tourist view. But really, I've never given water to any of these impressions, just try to take people as individuals. Are you saying that your experiences give these complaints more credit than I have? Depends on the country as you note. I only have experience with Canada primarily and for a year or so, in the US. There are no differences in people to speak of, save the "shoot me in the hip I'll still mow your lawn" or "sure I'll pay your bloody taxes and shut up" attitude in Canada." There are pockets of good and pockets of bad. Some good business people, some bad. What is problematic is that, like me, a lot of people not seeing opportunity to train, they dive into something, and go through years of rookie mistakes. Some businesses support training, it's somewhat intrinsic. (like chefs and plumbing etc.) But if retail is the only opportunity you see, when you didn't get the system drone education and you need to get food on the table right fucking now .. well you're behind the 8 ball but you do it anyway. I think it's one of most business's major failings, the idea of mentors and training; and I know they have to have the resources/capital to do such things. It seems to me in my experience that there are not many gravitating toward this. quote: You work with the system. I've done the same. Work with it, until I realized there were other ways, even if they didn't affect the entire world and change the planet. Milk the system so you can affect change no matter how small. ...if you regard the system as an enemy, I could see that point of view. But to be honest, I really don't. I've had parts of the system bend over backwards to help me, and other parts seemed to go out of their way to fuck me sideways. But in both cases I scratched under the surface and found good people doing their jobs, and the jobs were worthy of doing. Plenty of shit ain't right around here, but frankly, the honest, hopeful and helpful outnumber the dicks by a factor of yes, IME. Maybe you had a different experience. And I ain't talkin' about other whitebread Mayflower boys neither. Just people. Not an enemy. A Tool. My experiences in that regard are much the same. People given a chance to blossom far outweigh dickheads. I just think there are ways, adjustments to the system that expedite everyone, including dickheads rising above the poverty line and gaining some self worth which I think is the basis, no the real foundation of net worth of a company. I don't think dickheads actually want to be dickheads. It's one of those crap in crap out things imo. quote: I assume you're talking about infrastructure and if so I would debate your assertion that 'what their willing to pay for it' isn't quite the same as an individual would. Government waste and stupidity is a mountain of grief. I have worked with government (contracting), and the opportunity to take advantage of their 'standard' practices is laughable and I have told them so. They still do it of course. The public wants cheap so they get it. You probably know about the 'low bidder process'? A process that constantly beats itself to death because it doesn't demand excellence, promotes poor quality then re-feeds itself in repair costs that aren't then 'bid out' It ends up costing the public more but they don't see it because it's buried in 'other items' on the budget.. I do agree with the premise that price is what people are willing to pay in the private sector though. See, now you're bitchin on my wavelength. I can get behind this. On a positive note, there's been some recent reforms on this... I had to deal with this recently, worked for an electronics manufacturer that was doing government contracts, and had to wire some of the data services. Lots of innovations coming along... glacially, but coming. There's lots of things they could do. When I see gov agencies artificially inflating their budgets just before fiscal year end, I cringe, watching my tax dollars sinking into some make work project being done by a low bidder. And though not his fault since he has to short the gov somehow(cheap labor or products) to make his margins, it bloody well irks me. It's hard to blame the gov as well, because they choose low bidders to appease their constituency who don't want their taxes raised by what are essentially a wiser use of money that I call paying for excellence. I just hate that the gov goes round the back to make up for it and usually ends up paying more than wiser up front cost. Anyway, it's nice to hear what you say. I hope that shit begins here, and maybe just maybe this (recession?) will bring about some wisdom through necessity because its sickening the way it is. quote: It amazes me that we don't think along these lines as it pertains to finance. Maybe someone has, you'll correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly will. That's exactly the metaphor people who talk about this stuff use. At least in business. In civic units, not so much, but it's there. I've got a buddy who does a lot of grassroots stuff, I'll ask him how much they discuss politics in biomimicry terms. Which reminds me, if you dig that kind of thing then go here. http://www.asknature.org/ It's tagline is "a design discipline that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies." Fun stuff. Thanks, I'll chase bone later. Is this only about design? quote: See, this just demonstrates a lack of knowledge in regards to how money works. Imagine you've got two guys. One's a really good hunter and has all this food. The other one has fuckloads of pretty paper slips. Who do you think actually has more wealth? Money is self-correcting, all other factors being equal. If person A has so much more of it than anyone else, and persons B,C,D, and F only have a little, but one's a farmer, one's a carpenter, one's a barrel maker, etc... then B,C,D *will find other* ways to negotiate for services** and person A is just out in the cold. Dude, if only. quote: In a more robust economy, Mr. Moneybags keeping all of his money hidden away means that the money everyone else has is more valuable. It buys more. But if Moneybags goes on a spending spree, then inflation drives prices through the roof. Ya, I get that. I also get that they do that. I don't see the need for inflation that is money driven. They fuck with the balance, and I ask myself to what ends, becasue someone is sucking up the interest in the void. Presumably you've seen the videos on "Money as Debt"? quote: Now there are other forms of wealth; land, produce, etc. But in the form of money it creates a system that makes it very difficult for excess to imbalance - which is part of the reason why people still use it. Lost me, does not compute. quote: As to other forms of wealth, in extreme cases it's possible for individuals to cause abuse. Land ownership especially; Railroad barons are a historical example of this happening in America. This is generally where governments start to get involved, to redirect things before they get out of hand. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't; ours, for the most part, has done a fair job of holding the line. Being human (physical power, brain power, yada yada) is a wealth and that wealth is as abused as any other. And the problem or at least part of it is the way we value each other, because of "you know what"

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 11:16:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy " I hadn't earned enough to hire/train someone qualified with business acumen to take over in the remote ( I thought it was remote ) possibility I wasn't able to perform those tasks. My bad." 1) If HE had any business acumen he would have prepared for the eventuality. 2) It admittedly would have been hard to hire someone qualified to take over, since he/she would have been paid the same as the cleaning crew. But I'm an idiot so .. chirp chirp Thanks for your redundancy. Go back to sleep. or you could chase this bone ... here

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 5:14:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Well I hate to break it to you but what you're leading toward is not a new system, but a crippled monetary system. You're asking questions like "why does x person make more money than y person" and "if the line worker were paid equally to his chef." You're not attacking the concept of wealth, you're simply trying to force it into the wrong shape hole. It's not internally consistent, you're not thinking outside the box, you're just smooshing the box a bit so it's sort of lopsided. I laughed, trying to believe that the system I am proposing that isn't even in affect is somehow the same as the present crippled monetary system that is in affect. The future already crippled by virtue of the past. Let go of the cripple. quote: The reason I brought up past examples is because you claim that for 5600 years, more or less since the dawn of civilization, humanity has been living a lie and the basis of this is gambling on the chance that 'negative' human qualities such as greed and status ranking are not intrinsic to the human condition. If a 3 year old looks at his birthday cake and says "I want the big piece" is he corrupted by the 'lie' of greed, or does he simply want the big piece? I laughed again. Why does the child want the big piece? Are there other kids around all getting small pieces? What idiotic parent actually cut different size pieces in order to create this condition? I read an interesting article a few years back about feral children, Rather eye opening. What they found was that taking a feral child out of their environs they were raised, by pack animals, it was extremely difficult to change the child. Becoming 'normal' was out of the question. Changing their learned behaviors is a monumental task. Your 3 yr old in example here is s product of it's environs, no doubt, so it is the environs you want to look at. Humans are easily trained,especially in their early years and if you don't want to consider the possibility that you are too as regards the Noble Lie, that's fine. I understand. quote: This thread is supposed to be about critical thinking, not surface judgment. The concepts of social status and wealth have existed in more or less every civilization worth knowing about. Why? What affect did it have on civilization? This could take a long time to answer. So many factors; but the cover answer is bible, tora, buddha, gods, mythology (some of which is actually true), archetypes, hierarchy and the logos for this planet. (thats an even longer story that you would not likely get since you're not getting out the box yet) quote: Is there any connection between the persistent desire to move 'up' and 'forward' on an individual level and the progress of humanity as a whole, with regards to our quality of life? Of course. Problem is some already enjoy better quality while the rest of humanity does not, because they too believe they deserve more, once they have it. "It' 's mine." is problematic and resultant of being taught noble lies. Humanity as a whole isn't even close to 'connecting' or sharing their connection in progressing as a whole. quote: I'm criticizing what I perceive to be flawed reasoning, and right now I am encouraging you to look at the world as is, to fully grasp it, before believing you can improve it. To move beyond the judgments (lies, drones, nobles and serfs) and just contemplate humanity, our history, our strengths and our flaws. Take a step back from your individual point of view and just look at the cause and effect of it all. Assumption. The fact that my ideas seems so foreign to you doesn't mean I haven't done what you suggest and more. For me it says that you are stuck back there, unable to see what I see, however remote my ideas may seem to you. The world as is, sucks. Tear it down, think new, critically. Reason... people have been doing what you suggest for centuries, tweaking, adjusting, blah blah, never really changing anything because they have not torn it down to it's foundation. They keep hanging on to a foundation built on class distinction, hierarchy, caste, class, gods. It's been around for 5600 yrs. It's infested with Noble Lies. You can't fix that without removing nobility or any mutation of it. Time to flip the world on it's ear and, just my opinion... I think memes are the beginning. quote: I can't analyze that data, it's terribly overwhelming. But taking that perspective makes me read your post as "everything we've ever been throughout the entirety of our history is not who we really are" and that is what rings false to me. The difference is only time and maybe place. Who we were, isn't who we have to be. Constantly defaulting to yesterday isn't productive, it's just reliving who we were. quote: And btw, I am actually busy dealing with some people who don't want to let go of yesterday and think of new ways. I am also busy dealing with some fucknuts who's only contribution is to act like guttersnipe and scream bloated nonsense and innuendo from the cheap seats like they are at some basketball game because they don't have the talent to get in the game. And frankly I'm no professional critical thinker, so you'd think it would be easy for them to contribute more than the spew they contribute, especially if they are as smart as they imply they are, by way of their not so ingenious crap. Ah, elitism. There is hope for you after all XD I'm only being slightly facetious. I'm a chameleon apparently. I've been perceived as worse than elite. There's really nothing wrong with words, its' the meaning we give them that matters. Questions for you. Why do need to hold on to this present system? What happens when you let go, even if it's just in your mind? How many gods affect what you do everyday? I mean, how many are surreptitiously placed in your path. Admittedly in plain sight most often, but so much so that your 'aware waking mind' pays no attention to them anymore? Churches, mosques, bibles, 'god' printed on money, people using the words 'oh my god' invoking the lie inadvertently and many more times in other ways. How many? When you see that you're being programmed, well ... oh you are god. (<-this one's for DMF) How many people who have achieved what we percieve to be 'status', like movie stars, sports people, cross your path everyday and how do they affect you. Do you see yourself below them and them on top? The noble lie is so much in plain view that people don't 'see' it.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 5:43:56 PM)
[sm=AttentionWhore.gif] [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] [sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif]

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 6:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu Fucking hell, we provide more education and trade opportunities to inmates and the incarcerated than we do regular citizens. It doesn't make sense to me to tell the public, we have no opportunities for you until you shoot someone's mother or steal a few cars. Back asswards. Not evenly. Some states, levels of penitentiary, even parole officers do a better job than others. What happens is that some dude gets it into his head to do better for some group of people, does a kickass job, then other people go around wondering "But why do convicts get better treatment than I do?" Well, dude or dudette, it's cause you're motherfucking boring. Bitch some more, or do something about your situation. Be that guy who takes on a job and kicks its ass. quote: I understand the scenario. What it does though is come from deficit posture. Ok... like I said, this is difficult to explain. But you raise a good point. It is a deficit posture... and that's the basic premise of economics. If demand did not outstrip supply in some way, somewhere, then no 'momentum' would exist in any economy. The question is really where does demand stem from? And if it didn't exist in its current form, what form would it assume? Your premise is that the 'nobles' are gaming the system to create demand. As a system. But have you considered that it's the demand that's gaming the 'nobles'? A pre-existing condition of humanity that will always separate and concentrate wealth, regardless of what notions about wealth the prevailing culture provides? Further, that this condition is no quirk of psychology, but addresses an emergent property of society, any society, be it ants or groundhogs, or men? And last, that once such wealth is concentrated, it tends to disrupt and create instability in the person/group that possesses it, unless it is reinvested into the larger society? Again, this isn't about impressions.This is about what happens regardless of what you call 'wealth' and what system distributes it. It's inevitable. Like a heartbeat. Collect, reinvest. Collect, distribute. Ba-thump. This is what the American experience of wealth is, and it's why we approach our economy the way we do. We are not incapable of redirecting the current resources we have, to deal with a slightly less equal current set of problems that need those resources. But it's a moving target. By the time those resources are applied to the set they're pointed at, the set has grown. And the resources have diminished. That's not accounting for corruption, per se; it's normal, everyday 'signal loss'. In a rougher environment, the loss is greater. Furthermore, you've got two more growth factors to consider. The first is that the sets are requiring resource not just to survive, but to increase. There's your eugenics right there, but it's not as simple as 'We want strong smart people to survive.' It's more like, you're taking the risk of granting blood vessels to cancer. Even if the cancer is like, really heartwarming and cute. Like tribbles. If this goes too far, everyone dies, including the tribbles. The second is this: your 'why convicts and not us??' question... using the cancer analogy again, if other hungry cells who can self-adapt see all this blood the, hm. Instead of cancer, call it 'scar tissue'. If normal, healthy cells are seeing what the scar tissue is getting; they might ask themselves "If I was scar tissue, would I get more blood too?" In other words 'greed' and 'excess' are unavoidable. The idea is to point the bait for it in a direction that contributes to growth, instead of shining a spotlight on scar tissue and saying 'Be like THIS and you'll get time, attention and $$$!' quote: Presenting a situation where there just isn't enough to go around, I think is contrary to our reality. There is enough here, enough money, enough food, enough resources. It's just grossly disproportioned. Like I said, it's not just where the money is that matters. It's what people value it for. How it affects their thinking. 'Grossly disproportioned' is only gross and disproportioned if it's causing paralysis; the actual amounts are irrelevant. Money is an idea. We all know it's an idea. It is an illusion, but a necessary one. Just like words aren't actually what they represent, and you can make a word mean anything; so too with money. But as to distribution. It's not as simple as saying 'Teach everybody how to work together and be fair!" You have to ask these questions... why do people want to work together? When do they not work together, communicate, cooperate? What happens if they need to change their 'job' to address the needs of two different outside groups... which do they choose to change for? Or do they choose either? Why? What motivates the change? Are they even capable of it, or would it take too long to re-train in time to be useful? If so, what do you do then? You also have to investigate the idea of uniqueness. What makes something unique? What is the worth of uniqueness? What is the buying pattern of people who choose to spend time, resources, and money to acquire it? Hint: you can't say it's worthless. People try all the time, but other people give them the lie. All the time. What's the worth of a Mona Lisa? It's just some plant fibers with plant oil slopped onto it, after all. Why is it worth putting in a vault, spending so much time securing it? To some, it is worthless. Is it fair to burden them with the cost of it's security? To others, it's worth a lot. If they're willing to invest enough to take it, or keep it, in what ways does that affect its value? It's value to each individual in a society? It's value to a society as a whole? How do actions create value? What's the value in wrestling a crocodile? (hint: it's not valueless.) What's the value in stealing? In policing? What's the value of sharing, itself, sans the value of the item shared? How do you measure it? What is effort? How does it affect circumstance? How do different environmental variable affect effort? How does motivation affect effort? In what situations can one be highly motivated, yet achieve little effect? How does that affect motivation? How do communities affect it? -- When you understand all these question... you find out. It is not as simple as 'nobles are lying to keep themselves in power.' The power eats its own tail, can you see that? There is no real-world circumstance under which an illuminati could actually maintain itself, 1984-style, because the meaning of power and wealth itself changes as it's moved around. 'You just lost the GAME' does not apply to 99% of humanity, with some secret puppet masters being exempt; it applies to 100%. If you grok that reference. Equally true is that everybody won the game. Universal fairness is... meaningless, under those circumstances. So you've been studying memetics. Good for you. Have you learned the 'quantum' theory of memetics yet? How ideas can work as a wavelength and a 'particulate' at the same time, in different contexts? Here's the thing... minds are not a level surface as an environment. There's motherfucking geography, which can make totally unfair ideas seem fair, and fair ideas seem unfair. Hell, you can make a fair idea that looks unfair change to something that's unfair by making it look fair. For certain values of 'fair' and 'unfair'. Self-selection is just about the only way that things will ever get done in a situation like that. Any 'noble lie' would get fuckin' eaten alive by its own real-world practice, unless it produced an environment that was better for the majority of its participants' growth. Which in the case of capitalism, as a 'noble lie', would make it the truth, since it essentially is self-selection. Kind of a lie->accepted as truth ->creates its own truth scenario, assuming that it was a lie to begin with, which it wasn't. And any system where self-selection is restrained, will eventually be overrun by one that doesn't restrain it. Or it will be eaten from the inside out. And that's capitalism. Welcome to the motherfuckin' new world; it's the same as the old one... but unlike what you're saying, it's the current definitions that were always correct. Not the old 'noble' ones. That was the lie. Those nobles were always capitalists, they just didn't know it. Hardly any of them from like 300 years ago have kids that are in the upper echelons of current world power, too. How did that happen, if they've been working the system for their own benefit this whole time? Did they try but just suck at it? quote: but equal opportunity. Schooling man. Who can or can't afford it is problematic. I think we can agree if the foundation that supports your structure is not available to some, then the 'some' to whom it is unaffordable loses, actually becoming a burden, rather than a contribution, so society loses. Actually, I think this is exactly where we disagree. The 'some' don't lose anymore than the schooled kids win. And no, society as a whole does not necessarily lose for the existence of have-nots. Making something universally available changes its value. Downwards. And it has very unsettling effects on an 'ecosystem'. Here's a good example of a 'schooling' in nature. Think of schooling as fertilizer for growing minds. Then. Compare, for example, fertilizer. Nitrogen drawn from the air, mixed with other plant-healthy stuff and put into the ground to make plants grow better. It's a win-win for all, right? Except that now, nitrogen runoff is killing the fishing industry. And the oceans, incidentally. Also, swamps. And the bugs that are happiest about the extra nitrogen are really nasty bitches. Oops. You think people, minds, are on a different level than that, where such 'oops' moments don't happen if you over-fertilize to improve crops of 'mind'... you'd be wrong. Inequalities in the 'idea economy' exist for a reason; but that reason is not because of our concept of what economies consist of. It's more fundamental than that. And the tender of minds must be as careful of who they spend time on as an organic farmer is. The 'burden' of the have nots must be measured against the burden they'd have if they were all haves. The floor drops out from underfoot, in ways that are indirect and hard to explain, but very real. Don't get me wrong, poverty sucks, and ignorance sucks too. What I'm saying is that if you mandate that all must not be poor, then it's like you're trying to pull yourself off the ground by pulling on your pants really hard. All you get is a wedgie. This too is true for 'ignorance'. The have-nots of the information set. As a matter of fact, that arena is so fundamentally linked to the reasons for inequalities in distribution that you could say it's where it all starts. And where the 'noble lie' (again, calling it a noble lie is bullshit) of capitalism is most important; believing that self-selection is the fundamental driving force, makes it that much more true. It's the most playing-field-leveling notion anyone's come up with so far. The kind of self-creating prophecy that was already true, but reinforces itself. Calls into question entities that are giving it the lie, and makes them account for themselves. Self-selection is, again, the only real answer. Don't campaign to change the world; find a piece of it and make it better within the system, and be prepared for this to make someone else's situation a bit more uncomfortable. Especially if they end up owing you money. And if you end up with enough power and wealth to change the system as a whole, be careful of the runoff... or you'll end up like Russia, or worse, China. (have you seen some of the factory cities they guys have? It's fucking horrifying. But then, some parts of china are fucking outstandingly awesome, too. Welcome to communism... Looks a whole lot like poorly executed capitalism to me. Probably because of the "Socialist Lie.")

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 6:19:42 PM)
A+ Too bad his ideological blinders wont be open enough to read it, much less comprehend that it consists of fundamental observations of human nature. It is not theory, it is fact that has been demonstrated over and over again. There may be some parallel universe where capitalism is not the most efficient available economic approach, but it sure as hell isnt this one.

DMFParadox -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 6:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY [sm=AttentionWhore.gif] [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif] [sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif][sm=diethreaddie.gif] Naw dude, it's ok. A strawman attack is a good exercise in critical thinking. He promotes it by being the opposite of it. It's not like this conversation's going to affect anything important, except it's giving me and a few others the chance to evaluate our values under fire. It reminds me of when I was training to field-crawl under fire. The operators were deliberately missing us, but those fuckin' tracer rounds sure as hell made the experience more vivid. The fact that this makes Nslavu an attention whore is of no consequence. I only called him out on killing the thread 'cause it's a shit stupid thing to say; he couldn't do it if he tried. All he can do is stop posting, which might stop other people from posting in response.

Elisabella -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 6:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu I laughed, trying to believe that the system I am proposing that isn't even in affect is somehow the same as the present crippled monetary system that is in affect. The future already crippled by virtue of the past. Let go of the cripple. From your previous posts it would appear that the system you are proposing is for everyone at a company to get paid the same, because they are all equally important to the function of the company. This rests on two things - one, that the company as an entity is able to make money, and two, that the money made will be distributed within the company. That is our current system. You're just suggesting a change in one aspect, a change that (IMO) will make that system less effective in terms of strength and weakness. quote: I laughed again. Why does the child want the big piece? Are there other kids around all getting small pieces? What idiotic parent actually cut different size pieces in order to create this condition? I read an interesting article a few years back about feral children, Rather eye opening. What they found was that taking a feral child out of their environs they were raised, by pack animals, it was extremely difficult to change the child. Becoming 'normal' was out of the question. Changing their learned behaviors is a monumental task. Your 3 yr old in example here is s product of it's environs, no doubt, so it is the environs you want to look at. Humans are easily trained,especially in their early years and if you don't want to consider the possibility that you are too as regards the Noble Lie, that's fine. I understand. Fair point that there's subconscious training affecting even children, but how can you say things like "product of the environs" and "humans are easily trained" then call that a lie? The human environment is shaped by human nature. Nobody external is "training" humanity. Our society is a reflection of ourselves. quote: This could take a long time to answer. So many factors; but the cover answer is bible, tora, buddha, gods, mythology (some of which is actually true), archetypes, hierarchy and the logos for this planet. (thats an even longer story that you would not likely get since you're not getting out the box yet) And what effect did those gods and religions have on civilization? I don't really need an answer, it's not a question that can be comprehensively answered, but do you think that the establishment of religious doctrine has had any positive effect on society? I mean that in the sense that Christianity united Europe, Islam united Arabia, creating superpowers out of previously warring small nations, states, and tribes...how has this shaped our history? Since I can't fully answer that question, I can't take the next step which is to try to see an alternate timeline, but taking everything into account, I think the overall effect has been positive, that is, we are better off as a species now than we were in 3600 BC. quote: Of course. Problem is some already enjoy better quality while the rest of humanity does not, because they too believe they deserve more, once they have it. "It' 's mine." is problematic and resultant of being taught noble lies. Humanity as a whole isn't even close to 'connecting' or sharing their connection in progressing as a whole. But that's not actually true. We are progressing as a whole. The pattern seems to be that first, the wealthy get something new to improve quality of life, and within a negligible amount of time, the rest of us have access to it...the caveat is that if the wealthy weren't willing or able to pay for it in the first place, nobody would have it. Things like air conditioning, indoor heating and electricity, indoor plumbing, automobiles, air travel, the internet...these all used to be fairly expensive, now they are ubiquitous. If you want to see the progression as a whole, don't look at the rich vs the poor now, look at the working class today vs the working class of the 19th century. quote: Assumption. The fact that my ideas seems so foreign to you doesn't mean I haven't done what you suggest and more. For me it says that you are stuck back there, unable to see what I see, however remote my ideas may seem to you. The world as is, sucks. Tear it down, think new, critically. Reason... people have been doing what you suggest for centuries, tweaking, adjusting, blah blah, never really changing anything because they have not torn it down to it's foundation. They keep hanging on to a foundation built on class distinction, hierarchy, caste, class, gods. It's been around for 5600 yrs. It's infested with Noble Lies. You can't fix that without removing nobility or any mutation of it. Time to flip the world on it's ear and, just my opinion... I think memes are the beginning. I wonder, if you tore it down to its foundation, what that foundation would be. More to the point, I wonder if tearing it down to its foundation and allowing it to grow back organically would lead to something different. How much of it is primitive thinking and how much of it is human nature? Unlike you, I do believe in class distinction. Not based in income bracket, but relative to time and place, some people are going to be better at whatever skill is valued than others. Even back in hunting-gathering societies, the man who brought home 3 deer, without fail, while others struggled to get one was, quite simply, outclassing them. His status wasn't artificially imposed based on some noble lie, his status was a result of being the one who could feed the tribe when others could not. Same concept with endless variations still exists. quote: The difference is only time and maybe place. Who we were, isn't who we have to be. Constantly defaulting to yesterday isn't productive, it's just reliving who we were. Who we were isn't who we have to be but who we are is. If we ever get to a point of transcending human nature, I think capitalism will be the least of our worries. quote: Questions for you. Why do need to hold on to this present system? I don't need to hold onto it, it seems firm enough without my grasp XD Honestly, I'm not very concerned with how things 'should' be. I don't think everything is for the best, but I wonder how it could be any different. The interplay of nearly infinite elements of the human condition has created what exists now, if now could be different, why isn't now different? Barring some external force (divine manipulation so to speak) this all came together organically. So when I see things like 'tear it down' I shudder. You can't tear it down. The change will either happen gradually, and organically, or it will happen quickly, artificially, and temporarily. Do I think humanity can evolve into a more communal species without status distinction? Possibly. Que sera sera. But I don't think that videos about noble lies will have any effect on whether that happens. And I'm not entirely convinced it would be for the best. quote: What happens when you let go, even if it's just in your mind? I believe that letting go of the desire to have better for yourself will lead to severe slowing of progress for humanity as a whole. And I don't think it's possible for the human mind to see everyone as equal. Mostly because not everyone is equal. quote: How many gods affect what you do everyday? I mean, how many are surreptitiously placed in your path. Admittedly in plain sight most often, but so much so that your 'aware waking mind' pays no attention to them anymore? Churches, mosques, bibles, 'god' printed on money, people using the words 'oh my god' invoking the lie inadvertently and many more times in other ways. How many? When you see that you're being programmed, well ... oh you are god. (<-this one's for DMF) There's a church on the corner that I pass on my way to the grocery store. I say "oh my god" a lot but usually type it as omg. I believe in divinity though, so this doesn't bother me. quote: How many people who have achieved what we percieve to be 'status', like movie stars, sports people, cross your path everyday and how do they affect you. Do you see yourself below them and them on top? The noble lie is so much in plain view that people don't 'see' it. Movie stars and sports people are probably a bad example, because I don't see them as high status. My only encounter with them is laughing at their trashy exploits on gossip websites. Of course I think some actors are absolutely brilliant, and if I watched sports I'd probably think the same, but I in no way consider Helena Bonham Carter to be in the same class as Kim Kardashian. But on average, yes I do see people who have achieved measurable success in life to be higher status than those (like me) who haven't. I also think you have to compare apples to apples - for example Ron Jeremy is a "high status" porn star but he's still a porn star. Comparing him to others works best when you compare him to people who tried to do the same thing he did but didn't do it as well.

Edwynn -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/12/2010 9:48:34 PM)
Just to display how out of the loop I am regarding the discussion here, and likely further disqualifying myself in the process, but ... Results matter. How things play out "on the ground" matter. People losing jobs in the most developed countries, sometimes losing house in the process, civilians losing lives in the Middle East, people suffering too-frequent food shortages in SE Asia because of US and European "farm price supports," which is to say in reality treasury-to- agro-chem cash money supports ... don't have time to worry about who pulled what strings, nor if the process brought about by it has been in place for 3 years or 6,000 years, nor what "it's all for the best in the long run" justifications for it. Let's just stop right here and say; I don't care either, and it's not even affecting me anywhere near that level. Their aversion is to personal economic disruption exclusive of job performance, seeing family blood on the streets, and hunger, respectively, where as I merely have an aversion to blatant stupidity. Just take it one issue at a time and address that. Glass-Stegal was put in place to address financial markets stupidity. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 68 years later was for purpose of re-asserting stupidity. Philosophical discussion fills pulp economics belching known as media before and after events that render such discussion mute, yet it continues. Can I shoot myself now? Organic food is soon to be abolished via S 501, HR875, HR 845, et. al. by the same agro-chem folks that figured out how to flush 10,000 times more nitrogen into the streams than nature ever could have in normal conditions. But have fun with the air-as-causing-pollution-in-the streams on the one hand and old-money-being-the-only-cause of what some late brat super-genius Monsanto lawyer cum FDA director cum banish-organic think tank director (thereby US "food safety" legislation director) , ... what you have to say is important and we all want to hear it. Yeah.

Nslavu -> RE: Critical Thinkers vs Drones (11/13/2010 5:10:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I am an [sm=diethreaddie.gif] [sm=boohoo.gif]

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0859375