| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Step 4: Test Your plan for communism has not be tested and proven to be viable. Therefore we should reject it. Very sharp, No it hasent been tested in nothing but small situations. "Its not perfect its just alot better we will never achive perfection" -Jacue fresco It be alot better tho. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
| ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:46 Logros wrote: It hurts my head that people are actually arguing for this like it might work. It's because it sounds nice and all. Everybody had everything they want and can do whatever they want, but when you step back and think about it, especially human nature, you realize this kind of system is doomed to fail. And I'm yet to get an answer of who's going to spend all the time creating and maintaining the millions of robots who would provide everything for us and how everything is going to centrally planned. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
| ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:52 Myles wrote: It's because it sounds nice and all. Everybody had everything they want and can do whatever they want, but when you step back and think about it, especially human nature, you realize this kind of system is doomed to fail. And I'm yet to get an answer of who's going to spend all the time creating and maintaining the millions of robots who would provide everything for us and how everything is going to centrally planned.  peasants without a king ? anyone who know anything about human nature knows that a democracy is impossible peasants need their kings and lords. if you manage to watch through it all without your static identity forcing you to turn it off i salute you. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote: Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:56 DeliCiousVP wrote: peasants without a king ? anyone who know anything about human nature knows that a democracy is impossible peasants need their kings and lords. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CQUbcn7Bk if you manage to watch through it all without your static identity forcing you to turn it off i salute you. Don't ever use a Zeitgeist video as any form of evidence or proof, ever. I've watched plenty, thanks. They're full of shit. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:58 Myles wrote: Don't ever use a Zeitgeist video as any form of evidence or proof, ever. I've watched plenty, thanks. They're full of shit. 1 down mylas ignored i would look at whatever you showed but when your unwilling to even consider information you are already a lost cause | ||
|
ondik
Czech Republic2908 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:49 DeliCiousVP wrote: Very sharp, No it hasent been tested in nothing but small situations. "Its not perfect its just alot better we will never achive perfection" -Jacue fresco It be alot better tho. So you want us to believe in it on blind faith? The current system we have has issues (obviously!) but it's pretty darn good. Take a look at what it's done for world wealth and health over the past 200 years. Or in this video he points out what happened to China during the Great Leap Forward around 7:30 http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-asias-rise-ted-india/ | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
Not sure what you mean there. But they same the same crap as been spouted here without any actual way to implement it or account for the fact that things still have to be done, and their only answer to that is that human goodwill will get things done. That's a bunch of crap. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:49 DeliCiousVP wrote: Very sharp, No it hasent been tested in nothing but small situations. "Its not perfect its just alot better we will never achive perfection" -Jacue fresco It be alot better tho. So you're back to square one, you're saying "it will be a lot better" based on blind faith instead of the scientific method. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote: There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" The irony of it all is that its only based on evidence and facts nothing else all of this has sources you can even use google to start researching some of the "outrages" things you feel i say. Supply and demand are very real and if everything was perfect it would work. But people manipulate supply and demand on order to maximise profits. If they create abundunt energy the price tag dissapears so there is an incentive to halt technology. If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Look im not gonna pretend like any of you guys are actually getting this stuff you are all conditioned to riddicule and fight this. Many of you are sharp retoricly gifted and can convince yourself and others around you to belive in whatever you want them to. But you guys live in this world to dont let it burn. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote: The irony of it all is that its only based on evidence and facts nothing else all of this has sources you can even use google to start researching some of the "outrages" things you feel i say. Supply and demand are very real and if everything was perfect it would work. But people manipulate supply and demand on order to maximise profits. If they create abundunt energy the price tag dissapears so there is an incentive to halt technology. If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? Look im not gonna pretend like any of you guys are actually getting this stuff you are all conditioned to riddicule and fight this. Many of you are sharp retoricly gifted and can convince yourself and others around you to belive in whatever you want them to. But you guys live in this world to dont let it burn. Keep spouting empty rheotoric. You can say that same thing over and over again until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make any more of it more truthful just because you keep saying it. If it's so easy to find these sources, go ahead and bring them to us. I guarantee not one is a legit source. And money isn't the problem you speak of. Wealth is. Abolishing money doesn't end the greed for wealth. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote: But people manipulate supply and demand on order to maximise profits. If they create abundunt energy the price tag dissapears so there is an incentive to halt technology. If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? No one cares what those companies want. COMPETITION demands that they provide what the market wants. If a new technology can make electricity cheaper than it WILL BE USED. You fundamentally do not understand how the market economy works. It is NOT about constricting supply to artificially raise the price. It is about finding a cheaper way to do something to earn a profit. That is what drives the price DOWN! | ||
|
Rodiel3
France1158 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
1. technology does create jobs, and it does destroy jobs. it would be foolish to suggest that the horse-and-buggy maker was most pleased with the automobile, but the fact is that generally the employees of the horse-and-buggy industry were almost certainly benefiting from the automobile, and perhaps even got jobs building automobiles. flash forward into the future and we see the automobile industry has provided millions of jobs. thus his supposition that manufacturing will eventually be entirely replaced by machines is foolish. who will build the machines that must build the machines? who will fix them? Who will make sure they run correctly? Who will move them from place to place? who will design them? for every machine that replaces one job, there will be at least another job involving the production and use of that machine. 2. he wants to know what wall st. produces? they produce the investment that is required for the growth of business. what does the wall st. secretary produce? she produces organization and efficiency for her employer so that he can focus on creating more money with investment. just because he doesn't like these things does not mean that they are "fake" or that they don't matter. 3. no one is forcing a scientist to work on military projects. 4. is walking into a job you don't want to do so that you can get money that you "need" to spend freedom? the simple answer is yes, it is freedom. the problem this guy is having is that he doesn't recognize that "freedom" is not synonymous with "wonderful". there could be nothing more free than a man deciding to work at a job in order to pay bills that he freely incurred upon himself. and at the end of the day, there is no better example of freedom than telling a man that he is free to starve if he doesn't work. wonderful? no. free? yes. 5. laws are not only for the regulation of property, and eliminating property will not eliminate murder, rape, etc. governments are necessary for those exact reasons, rape, murder, etc. local governments could suffice for those, but what happens when the rape and murder is on a larger scale, to the point that one community is persecuting another? then you need a central government to exercise control over these smaller more local governments. the elimination of property would not negate this fact. 6. a direct quote: "It is not an issue of what any of us like, it is an issue of what is right for society and what is sustainable for the human species." he said that in response to a woman saying: "i do not want to go back to working the land, i want to be a journalist." so basically, he's not going to let us do what we want (which is the selling point of your philosophy), but is going to force us to do what he thinks is right and good for society. 7. he can't even provide a new incentive, he just takes away old incentives. 8. this guy makes a whole lot of assumptions about people that he's never met... | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No one cares what those companies want. COMPETITION demands that they provide what the market wants. If a new technology can make electricity cheaper than it WILL BE USED. You fundamentally do not understand how the market economy works. It is NOT about constricting supply to artificially raise the price. It is about finding a cheaper way to do something to earn a profit. That is what drives the price DOWN! You think money gave us what we have today or technology? you think money invented the wheel? and its proven that monetary reward hinders creativity. And everything you just said is incorrect new technology is only absorbed if the market can find it profitable. "Their competion will develop it then" you would think so but they actually patent it so its against the law to use the new technology,.and im sorry to have to reverse this on you but you fundamentally dont understand market economy. Companies have also realised that co-operating with each other can bring more profits to them this is known as forming a cartell. like the gas companies and cigarette companies do where they agree on pricing between each other. Competion also forces companies to dish out inferior products in order to maintain market share and continue on the cyclical consumption cycle. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote: If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 07 2012 03:31 DeliCiousVP wrote: You think money gave us what we have today or technology? you think money invented the wheel? and its proven that monetary reward hinders creativity. And everything you just said is incorrect new technology is only absorbed if the market can find it profitable. "Their competion will develop it then" you would think so but they actually patent it so its against the law to use the new technology,.and im sorry to have to reverse this on you but you fundamentally dont understand market economy. Companies have also realised that co-operating with each other can bring more profits to them this is known as forming a cartell. like the gas companies and cigarette companies do where they agree on pricing between each other. Competion also forces companies to dish out inferior products in order to maintain market share and continue on the cyclical consumption cycle. No one spends millions to develop a new technology just to patent it and not use it. And patents expire anyways so... again every incentive to use it. Cartels are illegal. Price fixing is illegal. If you know of any let the authorities know, they will pay you a reward for your information :-) If the product is inferior people won't buy it. Apple isn't a success because they shove out inferior products. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
