RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (Full Version)

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



Message


tweakabelle -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 9:41:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LinnaeaBorealis

I really don't see this as a partisan issue either. And it could be a great topic of conversation. But some are so entrenched in their partisan beliefs that they think that everything in life is either due to the conservatives or the liberals, the democrats or the republicans.

I agree that there is too much information in too many places for this to happen in this day & age. And I have some issues with the facial recognition software, the GPS in the cellphones that show where I am at any given moment of any given day, the coding on credit cards that do the same, the grocery discount cards that track what I spend my money on, & most of all, the medical records being computerized. When I hear that Kaiser commercial where they tell me this is an improvement, I just shudder!! And if the store insists that I have to give them information to get a discount card, I always falsify it on general principal.


Thanks for a sane intelligent contribution. I share your concerns. I too adopt your strategy of routinely lying on every form I'm asked to fill out. I have no idea how many contradictory databank versions of me exist - but there must be plenty. I urge everyone to do this.

As things stand, there is few if any limits on the nature amount or content of the information stored about us as individuals. Overwhelmingly, the mass of this data is stored in private databanks where it's subject to no oversight or public accountability. For example, look at the increasingly accurate invasive strategies advertisers have at their disposal to direct their messages on the Net. Our identities, behaviours and preferences are just more commodities to be traded for profit.

If people are concerned about 'Big Brother" influence and control over their lives (and there is every justification for such concerns), this is where the most immediate dangers lie IMHO.




TheHeretic -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 9:44:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

being classed as a rad is hardly an insult or true



Well, that's all good, Lucy, and I surely have my moments of radical thought myself, but do you wish to be lumped in with the school of thought that says this? (my bold)

The moment a genuine green thinker, or indeed anyone with an ounce of spiritual insight, considers the demands of the whole economy is the moment that they start to wonder why we are producing all this crap. Why do we spend our lives driving to and fro on a daily basis, buying new clothes that we don't need, shunting food around the planet when it grows next door, eating disproportionate amounts of meat, wasting staggering amounts of food, discarding an endless stream of packaging, heating up entire houses to tee-shirt temperature when a warm room would do, warming up the firmament with patio heaters, and purchasing roomfuls of gewgaws and gizmos — the pursuit of Mammon, as it used to be called — when there is no evidence that this makes us any more fulfilled than we would be if we contented ourselves with a sufficiency of food, shelter, medicine and the cultural technology that was available in the days of Bach, Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci. The green ethic rejects economic growth in the industrialized countries because it imposes excessive demand on the world's resources, and it rejects nuclear power because that would only encourage economic growth.
 
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1
 
I'm pretty sure the sorts of items that make up your business aren't going to make the cut in the worldview he and his would like to impose.




Real0ne -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 10:00:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I was in the fifth grade, the first time I picked up George Orwell's 1984.  It scared the hell out me, and has managed to do that every time I've picked it up since.  Just scanning through the opening chapters, and looking for the snip below creeped me out.

(For anyone who has never read the novel, it is out of copyright, and available to read free, online.
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html )

As Winston Smith goes about his job in the Ministry of Truth, correcting and updating the past, Orwell asks a little suspension of disbelief from his readers.  Every hard copy, everywhere, must be tracked down and replaced? 

quote:

What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date.


As I think most people would have done, I rationalized that there would be a lot fewer people who saved pamphlets, or lived in homes surrounded by books, gave him the leap on "how" it was done, and let the horror of "what" was being done have its impact

In the age we live in though, with the developments coming into play, and all the records going to electronic storage, do you think this aspect of Orwell's nightmare vision might soon become possible?  Forget the pneumatic tubes and printing presses, substitute "he completed his upload, and pressed 'submit' to send the corrective cloud crawler program in its way."

This subject could easily attract the attentions of more conspiracy minded posters, who might say it's already here.  I hope that won't scare off the rational.




well you went trollling and you caught one.  One you wont be able to handle.

Thats right its right under your nose and you as can be seen by your lack of rational presentation that you are none the wiser.

Here is a sweet example and a 2 x 4 to wake you up how words are ABUSED and accepted by not only scholars but also and worse the courts.   In fact the courts who control the country are the worst abusers of them all.

quote:



holocaust [image]http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif[/image]mid-13c., "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Gk. holokauston "a thing wholly burnt," neut. of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see holo-) + kaustos, verbal adjective of kaiein "to burn." Originally a Bible word for "burnt offerings," given wider sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1833. The Holocaust "Nazi genocide of European Jews in World War II," first recorded 1957, earlier known in Hebrew as Shoah "catastrophe." The word itself was used in English in reference to Hitler's Jewish policies from 1942, but not as a proper name for them.
Auschwitz makes all too clear the principle that the human psyche can create meaning out of anything. [Robert Jay Lifton, "The Nazi Doctors"]



Holocaust never did and never will have a fucking thing to do with massacre!  It is a linguistic abortion.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=holocaust



1984 should scare the hell out of you.








tweakabelle -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 10:14:54 PM)

quote:

The green ethic rejects economic growth in the industrialized countries because it imposes excessive demand on the world's resources, and it rejects nuclear power because that would only encourage economic growth.
 
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1
 
I'm pretty sure the sorts of items that make up your business aren't going to make the cut in the worldview he and his would like to impose.


Basic arithmetic tells us that growth cannot keep happening forever. It's impossible to sustain.

There is a finite amount of resources on the planet. They will not last forever. It doesn't matter how innovative or clever or inventive we are. It doesn't matter which way we organise or process or re-arrange them, at some point we will run out of new resources. Well before that point we currently have a choice about going down the route of sustainable development. When we get to that point, we will have no choice but to adopt a policy of sustainable development only.

Unless you wish to argue (moronically) that resources are infinite, is there another option?




Real0ne -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 10:29:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

The green ethic rejects economic growth in the industrialized countries because it imposes excessive demand on the world's resources, and it rejects nuclear power because that would only encourage economic growth.

http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1

I'm pretty sure the sorts of items that make up your business aren't going to make the cut in the worldview he and his would like to impose.


Basic arithmetic tells us that growth cannot keep happening forever. It's impossible to sustain.

There is a finite amount of resources on the planet. They will not last forever. It doesn't matter how innovative or clever or inventive we are. It doesn't matter which way we organise or process or re-arrange them, at some point we will run out of new resources. Well before that point we currently have a choice about going down the route of sustainable development. When we get to that point, we will have no choice but to adopt a policy of sustainable development only.

Unless you wish to argue (moronically) that resources are infinite, is there another option?


you talking about oil?  there is plenty of everything else.  Maybe some day land.

As far as energy is concerned cold fusion is proven to work and easy bench measurements at 1000% percent over input, and the tesla towers in which tesla predicted over 1million times input have been proven in a throw together project non tuned or optimized at over 1000% at glauskau and 2 other german universities and it can be transmitted to whatever you want to power, your car whatever, just tune in exactly like a radio receives music and it was invented in 1899!   Yes the gubafia loves us.

Just because the the owners of this world do not want you to have free energy does not mean it cant be had.

quote:

Our identities, behaviours and preferences are just more commodities to be traded for profit.

If people are concerned about 'Big Brother" influence and control over their lives (and there is every justification for such concerns), this is where the most immediate dangers lie IMHO.


as well as your bodies.

You are cattle and thought as such, you can see these in the ag department.

Why do you think you are called a "human resource".

Look up the etymology of that word sometime in a GOOD book.  meaning law book.


Oh yeh you are a commodity, that is a person, that gave way to all sorts of abuse from those people foolishly call "leaders".




Real0ne -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 10:51:57 PM)

oh and btw;

that is what most states are already doing.

They only hold hard copies of records for a short time and then destroy them.

Right now my state cannot even prove it is really a state.

Land records are disintegrating important court cases discarded.

It happens all the time, in fact its the NORM.

You know why?  the states having promoted themselves from sovereign to God, now PRESUME that one they have the data that because they are purely honest an upright that they do not need hard copies.

Try to get birth records in many states and the MCO for autos, anything else that the state wants to claim their "INTERST" in.

You statement comparing anyone who claims its already here as conspiracy theorists is on the same propaganda level as dubya claiming that everyone is either with his mob or they are terrorists.

And he meant it.  Ask any reporter who disagrees with the 911 issues.  Anyone who cannot see this is looking at the world through shit paper tubes.




joether -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/11/2011 11:35:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montana32DDD
Global Warming = Democrat Totalitarianism
Environmentalism = Democrat Totalitarianism
High Taxes, High Regulation = Democrat Totalitarianism
Government programs that reward the unsuccessful paid for by the successful = Democrat Totalitarianism
National Single Payer Health Care = The Ultimate in left wing Democrat Totalitarianism coming soon
Population Control - Choosing who gets to breed (Conservatives need not apply) = Democrat Totalitarianism
Democrat Response to anyone who does not agree with them = Democrat Totalitarianism
787 Billion Dollar Stimulus program resultingi n 25 million unemployed = Democrat Totalitarianism
Public Education/Labor Unions = Democrat Totalitarianism (Or do you support a tax funded army of Conservative supporters in all fifty states courtesy of Uncle Sam?  No?  Hypocrisy thy name IS Democrat.)
New York City - Highest Taxes, Highest Regulations, Rated most Authoritarian City in the World. - BBC
Frankly, from where I sit, I am surprised we still have democrats, let along anyone who is silly enough to defend their failed and flawed policies.  

To easy.


I thought of long and indepth counter to your post. But quite honestly, why would I believe a conservative talking head would understand reason, logic, or just plain old history? Most of your post is just flat out crap and ignorance of the facts. Heck, you have no idea what the C.A.R.S. (2009), A.R.R.A. (2009) or the A.A.C.A. (2010) are about, nor have read 'cover to cover'. Yes, the counter is pretty damn long, but its set up for someone that would be open to discussion and honest debate. Something most conservatives seem to lack these days. Its truely unfortunate for the tiny minority of REAL conservatives that actually want our form of goverment to work for America instead of against it (and no, your not in that minority).

So instead I'll give you this video that should help explain things. Yeah, its a month old and from a guy that posts 'way to damn many things' from science to history and all sorts of non-political things inbetween.




Termyn8or -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 1:37:11 AM)

Jumping straight into the OP here Heretic, before I read this can you attest that it has not been altered ?

T^T




TheHeretic -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 6:44:40 AM)

LOL, Termy!  Yep.  Even the unperson is still here.




StrangerThan -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 7:18:53 AM)

You'd need a world government or at least, an agreement of world governments to do it.

But yes, it's probably possible in terms of what's seen online. At the same time, it is also about as likely as winning every lottery for the next year.




Termyn8or -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 10:47:05 AM)

FR

Someone mention archiving the internet ?

Funny, I notice some webpages that don't allow rightclick, it took me a minute to figure out how to do it. That was years ago. So not long ago I upgraded my browser. In the old browser when I went to save a page it would sometimes say "This page may not sve correctly" but it went ahead and saved it. Well in this "better" browser I went to save a page from the county recorder's office about a property on the east side. Looked good until I tried to biew the stored page. the page I tried to save had the data on the property, the browsert however saved the search page. I tried it a few times with the same results.

If I hadn't checked, I would not have the page. Since I did and found our that it wouldn't do it I did the next best thing, I pasted it into Microsoft Word. Displays it pretty good :-)

T^T




Lucylastic -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 11:12:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

being classed as a rad is hardly an insult or true



Well, that's all good, Lucy, and I surely have my moments of radical thought myself, but do you wish to be lumped in with the school of thought that says this? (my bold)

The moment a genuine green thinker, or indeed anyone with an ounce of spiritual insight, considers the demands of the whole economy is the moment that they start to wonder why we are producing all this crap. Why do we spend our lives driving to and fro on a daily basis, buying new clothes that we don't need, shunting food around the planet when it grows next door, eating disproportionate amounts of meat, wasting staggering amounts of food, discarding an endless stream of packaging, heating up entire houses to tee-shirt temperature when a warm room would do, warming up the firmament with patio heaters, and purchasing roomfuls of gewgaws and gizmos — the pursuit of Mammon, as it used to be called — when there is no evidence that this makes us any more fulfilled than we would be if we contented ourselves with a sufficiency of food, shelter, medicine and the cultural technology that was available in the days of Bach, Shakespeare and Leonardo da Vinci. The green ethic rejects economic growth in the industrialized countries because it imposes excessive demand on the world's resources, and it rejects nuclear power because that would only encourage economic growth.
 
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/thanks-george-no-thanks-1
 
I'm pretty sure the sorts of items that make up your business aren't going to make the cut in the worldview he and his would like to impose.

hmmmmmmm I feel the same way about being labelled a communist or a stalinist, and when applying labels to the beliefs of the right...have I ever accused you of being a religious righty? have I ever accused of being a nazi or a neo con, or labelling you with anything more than a republican?
No, because I dont believe that you have to live by the opinions of everyone on what the right believes.
I will NEVER vote for the right because their core beliefs are not anywhere close to mine..
I know there is pollution, I know humans are disgusting foul creatures bent on destroying the planet for greed. I believe in a lot of environmental ideas, but in no way do I support ELF or PETA and many other "rads". I belong to greeenpeace, have been a lifelong member of the english zoological society, I am a member of Amnesty international, I am a member of the World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian world wildlife fund also a longstanding member of the royal society for the protection of birds. But the plonker who classed me as a stalinist, has not educated himself beyond moron level. Thats laughable, he shows his ignorance just by the labelling. why should I be offennded by that, it makes me laugh that level of stupid is tolerated:)




Moonhead -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 11:51:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Obamacare dictates that everyones complete medical history go into the megatron computer for example. Social Security gives everyone their number, banking information is becoming highly centralized, facial recognition technology combined with cameras everywhere are fast becoming a reality, and these things are all trending towards being merged together so that there will be no hiding in the future for any rebel of any kind at all.

Which relates to George Orwell's distaste for Stalinism how, exactly?




Sanity -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 3:57:07 PM)


Rather, I see everything going digital, with a gradual interlinking of every database that there is and efforts made to include various controls in the developing media types. Perhaps not all under centralized control immediately, but having about the same effect as far as the individual is concerned.

That wonderful new vehicle that you love so much (for example) probably includes a very intelligent little black box, a gift from big sister intended to help keep society safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

You'd need a world government or at least, an agreement of world governments to do it.

But yes, it's probably possible in terms of what's seen online. At the same time, it is also about as likely as winning every lottery for the next year.





Owner59 -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 7:45:00 PM)

Again,when the saviours of civilization rescue us from the centralized controlling authority boggy-man,that controls everything, that creates preception itself and controls all thought and minds......who`s going to save us from you kooks?




SternSkipper -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 7:52:28 PM)

quote:

Question,who`s going to save us from the kooks like yourself after you`ve saved us from the thought-police?


How they gonna do that? You have any idea how hard it is to get a neo-con to pop a cap into their own head?




Owner59 -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 7:55:30 PM)

Good to see you Skip.

Missed ya.




TheHeretic -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 8:05:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
hmmmmmmm I feel the same way about being labelled a communist or a stalinist, and when applying labels to the beliefs of the right...have I ever accused you of being a religious righty? have I ever accused of being a nazi or a neo con, or labelling you with anything more than a republican?



I have no idea who called you a Stalinst, Lucy, but it wouldn't have been me.  I said "radical enviroloonies," and asked if you wished to be classed with them.  With the affiliations you say you have, I'm sure you have encountered the folks who want us in homespun cloth, on subsistence farms, and I'm willing to bet you give them the courtesy of not going for the big eye roll until you are moving away.




Owner59 -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 8:29:01 PM)

"radical enviroloonies"

Parents who rightly don`t want to leave their children a polluted and harmed planet aren`t radicals.

Calling that concern radical is what a douche-bag jerk would do.

You may hate your own children rich and want to leave them ruined planet and that`s your prerogative.

Just don`t hate everyone else`s children.






Lucylastic -> RE: 1984: Do we have the technology for "truth?" (9/12/2011 8:35:56 PM)

No Rick you have a blind spot where sanity is concerned.. Ive met more than my share of loonies from the clinical to the radical on both sides of the political divide
religious righties and righteous repubs are actually much worse.
Ive known of more religious right killers from the US (not personally)than I have murdering environmentalists from the US< UK and Canada combined.
edited to add qualifier of religious righties and righteous repubs




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875