On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Talk about whoosh. Holy shit. Nowhere in my post did it even remotely imply using gold as currency. I was naming materials.
And where did I suggest that you said that Gold should be used as a currency? I used Gold as an example as why the value of anything is subjective and that currency is probably the better alternative.
Except it's not about value. There is a difference between material objects and concepts. Money is not a material object, and thus does not fall into materialism. (AKA EARLIER POST). And what 'better is' is subjective anyway, so there is no 'better' alternative to whatever you are saying.
Money has no value outside of the convention of currency, none. It is not real, it is a concept. Gold has intrinsic value because you can touch it and feel it. The material the money is 'printed' on has value, the $10 amount attached to the note has no value.
That is why saying the goal of obtaining money is what drives everyone is offensive. If it was worded to obtaining wealth, that would be okay.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Talk about whoosh. Holy shit. Nowhere in my post did it even remotely imply using gold as currency. I was naming materials.
And where did I suggest that you said that Gold should be used as a currency? I used Gold as an example as why the value of anything is subjective and that currency is probably the better alternative.
Except it's not about value. There is a difference between material objects and concepts. Money is not a material object, and thus does not fall into materialism. (AKA EARLIER POST). And what 'better is' is subjective anyway, so there is no 'better' alternative to whatever you are saying.
Money has no value outside of the convention of currency, none. It is not real, it is a concept. Gold has intrinsic value because you can touch it and feel it. The material the money is 'printed' on has value, the $10 amount attached to the note has no value.
That is why saying the goal of obtaining money is what drives everyone is offensive. If it was worded to obtaining wealth, that would be okay.
And the alternative is not bartering.
Ok I accept that.
But what is your alternative, I'm curious. It wouldn't be pegging currency to a stable good would it?
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Talk about whoosh. Holy shit. Nowhere in my post did it even remotely imply using gold as currency. I was naming materials.
And where did I suggest that you said that Gold should be used as a currency? I used Gold as an example as why the value of anything is subjective and that currency is probably the better alternative.
Except it's not about value. There is a difference between material objects and concepts. Money is not a material object, and thus does not fall into materialism. (AKA EARLIER POST). And what 'better is' is subjective anyway, so there is no 'better' alternative to whatever you are saying.
Money has no value outside of the convention of currency, none. It is not real, it is a concept. Gold has intrinsic value because you can touch it and feel it. The material the money is 'printed' on has value, the $10 amount attached to the note has no value.
That is why saying the goal of obtaining money is what drives everyone is offensive. If it was worded to obtaining wealth, that would be okay.
And the alternative is not bartering.
However, assigning value to anything is a concept. Gold only has the intrinsic value of it's applications in industry, which really aren't as numerous as other materials. Helium, for one, is a fairly cheap element, but has a wide application range and relatively short supply. However, you don't see people paying $100s for an ounce of it. From your explanation, a proper synonym for it would be "hoarding," where one selfishly acquires necessary materials. However, this isn't really the heart of the matter, since the "goal of obtaining wealth" can really be reduced into the goal of obtaining power. If you could gain power and favors by jumping over successive spiked pits and not by gaining wealth or money, we would likely not see the "goal of obtaining wealth" as affluent.
Accusing people of being anti-semitic because they criticize Israeli foreign policy is really dishonest and silly. This is even worse. Shows how desperate the right is. When your only defense and argument is character assassination and fear mongering, you don't have much ground to stand on.
But personally I hope it's more than just a re balance of wealth, I'd like to see it result in a social shift away from the consumer model because lets be honest; the majority of shit produced/purchased is garbage.
But personally I hope it's more than just a re balance of wealth, I'd like to see it result in a social shift away from the consumer model because lets be honest; the majority of shit produced/purchased is garbage.
I'm hoping it will be a massive shift that removes profit greed and corporate influence from politics. Otherwise we get shit like a Monsanto execute directing the EPA, or a Goldman Sachs guy in the EU central bank.
Also I wanted to input that the park was very clean, as clean as you can build stuff out of mostly tarp. It was very organized with a first aid section, a food area, sleep area, media section.. photo booths.. musical stuff going on. It didn't smell at all and lots of tourists were going in and out of the park taking pictures.
Accusing people of being anti-semitic because they criticize Israeli foreign policy is really dishonest and silly. This is even worse. Shows how desperate the right is. When your only defense and argument is character assassination and fear mongering, you don't have much ground to stand on.
unfortunately it seems like that ground is very very stable, its so depressing, worst part of it is Jews arent even the only semitic people but it gets used exclusively for them, just another thing they managed to hijack (so getting banned for this one.)
Very nice. Thank God they were able to escape the liberal bias of Wikipedia.
An astroturf movement of radicals to counteract the real grassroots movement of the Tea Party, spreading to DOZENS of other liberal cities! And they spit on soldiers!
Accusing people of being anti-semitic because they criticize Israeli foreign policy is really dishonest and silly. This is even worse. Shows how desperate the right is. When your only defense and argument is character assassination and fear mongering, you don't have much ground to stand on.
Americans have difficulties recognizing the differences between anti-semitic and anti-zionist. And muslims, islamists and terrorist. And socialism and communism.
And capitalism and egocentrism as well, it seems.
I really hope the protests manage to bring about some change, but I highly doubt it.
O____O Europe is beating us! Get a move on America~
On a more serious note, glad to see that the movement has expanded all over the world. Would people say this is similar to the major protests in the 60s?
On October 17 2011 05:32 Shiragaku wrote: O____O Europe is beating us! Get a move on America~
On a more serious note, glad to see that the movement has expanded all over the world. Would people say this is similar to the major protests in the 60s?
Europe has been going through tougher austerity measures than the U.S., so it makes sense that there would be a stronger populist backlash. However, it's kinda interesting, since they're not affected nearly as much by income inequality.
Protests don't accomplish anything. Honestly the hippies in NY are just doing outside what they normally do inside their houses. Sit around and not look for a job.
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rNij-2SE8yQ/TpiNKdERuCI/AAAAAAAACZo/EaFdB9uIPDQ/s1600/inequality-page25_1.png)
