it's illogical to defend a dying system.. the bombardment of advertisements, environmental degradation, global economic crises, pointless jobs, wars for resources, inferior products, overpriced education, wealth and distribution inequality, etc. capitalism will not last forever, and it is becoming clear next step in social evolution is nearing as technology is advancing rapidly. I find it funny that people actually believe austerity measures and taking further loans will fix the european union.
PLEASE state how you make a living next time you post so biases and technological feasibility can be evaluated.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
Life is becoming easier and better each year escpially in the western world mostly due to our technological advancement. Our wellfare society that we are entering now will allow more people to express their creativity without worriying about having a job.
Sweden for example is a wellfare society and it is one of the reason we have many progamers with around 10% of Germanys total population and less then 3% of USA's population. obviously other things factor to such as gaming culture but its harder to become a progamer when you have to become a mininum wage worker at mcdonalds.
I'm sorry, but you literally keep changing your train of thought in the middle of your sentences. Are you pro-technology now? Just a few posts ago it was a demon that was stealing jobs...Also, how exactly are we exploiting third world countries, and how exactly is that providing US with jobs?
Haha, wait what? What does progaming have to do with any of this? And are you seriously suggesting that some people should get to play SC2 all day and other people should have to work to pay for that? wtf
No his idea is that technology has advanced to a point that we can afford to take care everyone, and that this needs to occur in a new system because capitalism is unable to provide for those that are unemployed due to these developments.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
This is a false dichotomy, in reality there are many reasons why developing countries are not yet on par with the developed world. I take it you have not read anything on development studies either?
oh, realy please enligthen me i obviously have no clue what goes on in the third world
Watch some videos by the highly regarded Swedish statistician Hans Rosling at http://www.gapminder.org/
This one's titled "Debunking myths about the third world." It's a few years old so if you want newer ones look at the other links I've posted.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
Life is becoming easier and better each year escpially in the western world mostly due to our technological advancement. Our wellfare society that we are entering now will allow more people to express their creativity without worriying about having a job.
Sweden for example is a wellfare society and it is one of the reason we have many progamers with around 10% of Germanys total population and less then 3% of USA's population. obviously other things factor to such as gaming culture but its harder to become a progamer when you have to become a mininum wage worker at mcdonalds.
I'm sorry, but you literally keep changing your train of thought in the middle of your sentences. Are you pro-technology now? Just a few posts ago it was a demon that was stealing jobs...Also, how exactly are we exploiting third world countries, and how exactly is that providing US with jobs?
Haha, wait what? What does progaming have to do with any of this? And are you seriously suggesting that some people should get to play SC2 all day and other people should have to work to pay for that? wtf
No his idea is that technology has advanced to a point that we can afford to take care everyone, and that this needs to occur in a new system because capitalism is unable to provide for those that are unemployed due to these developments.
Thats basicly it yeah. When did you get so smart crushinator!
Watch some videos by the highly regarded Swedish statistician Hans Rosling at http://www.gapminder.org/
This one's titled "Debunking myths about the third world." It's a few years old so if you want newer ones look at the other links I've posted.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
Life is becoming easier and better each year escpially in the western world mostly due to our technological advancement. Our wellfare society that we are entering now will allow more people to express their creativity without worriying about having a job.
Sweden for example is a wellfare society and it is one of the reason we have many progamers with around 10% of Germanys total population and less then 3% of USA's population. obviously other things factor to such as gaming culture but its harder to become a progamer when you have to become a mininum wage worker at mcdonalds.
I'm sorry, but you literally keep changing your train of thought in the middle of your sentences. Are you pro-technology now? Just a few posts ago it was a demon that was stealing jobs...Also, how exactly are we exploiting third world countries, and how exactly is that providing US with jobs?
Haha, wait what? What does progaming have to do with any of this? And are you seriously suggesting that some people should get to play SC2 all day and other people should have to work to pay for that? wtf
No his idea is that technology has advanced to a point that we can afford to take care everyone, and that this needs to occur in a new system because capitalism is unable to provide for those that are unemployed due to these developments.
Great. And when he can prove we actually have the capacity and technologically to do so, I'd love to hear more.
Until then, I'm done. This thread is completely ridiculous and nothing will be achieved out of it. Send me a PM when this organization actually manages to do something of remote significance.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
Life is becoming easier and better each year escpially in the western world mostly due to our technological advancement. Our wellfare society that we are entering now will allow more people to express their creativity without worriying about having a job.
Sweden for example is a wellfare society and it is one of the reason we have many progamers with around 10% of Germanys total population and less then 3% of USA's population. obviously other things factor to such as gaming culture but its harder to become a progamer when you have to become a mininum wage worker at mcdonalds.
I'm sorry, but you literally keep changing your train of thought in the middle of your sentences. Are you pro-technology now? Just a few posts ago it was a demon that was stealing jobs...Also, how exactly are we exploiting third world countries, and how exactly is that providing US with jobs?
Haha, wait what? What does progaming have to do with any of this? And are you seriously suggesting that some people should get to play SC2 all day and other people should have to work to pay for that? wtf
No his idea is that technology has advanced to a point that we can afford to take care everyone, and that this needs to occur in a new system because capitalism is unable to provide for those that are unemployed due to these developments.
Great. And when he can prove we actually have the capacity and technologically to do so, I'd love to hear more.
Until then, I'm done. This thread is completely ridiculous and nothing will be achieved out of it. Send me a PM when this organization actually manages to do something of remote significance.
Does Co-operating with NASA to end world hunger count?
This thread has been entertaining up to this point...I'm sorry but I have to ask a few things Delicious. How much school have you gone through, do you know how scientific research is conducted/what the peer-review process is, and do you understand that linking youtube videos from news stations as proof/information is a terrible way to convince anyone that you're correct?
Here is a list of things to do that will help you convey your point more clearly:
1) Stop with the flowery language that has almost no real meaning and instead use a boring, terse writing style that will more effectively relay your message. Talking in hypotheticals is the equivalent of saying, "I don't know how it works but it sounds good to me." I'll assume you actually want to convince people, not compose poetic responses to peoples' questions.
2) Find his actual research papers that he submitted to PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. This the the most important thing you can do and it will appease a ton of the people lodging complaints about your position. If there is a scientific article that he has written, find it and link it to us to evaluate...any good research is transparent and open to critical analysis.
3) Don't post anecdotal evidence...that means that your experiences don't mean anything when it comes to a hypothesize economic system if you do not have cold hard facts/numbers to support your claim. If you claim that there are 600 million people unemployed, provide evidence with a link to something other than a youtube video you saw on the news, a wikipedia page, or a blog. The facts might be common knowledge to most people but it is important to give the information with a source to back it up. If you don't, people will think you are simply making up numbers.
4) Be open to the fact that you might not be right after all...everyone else in this thread wants to simply see something tangible. No one likes to be convinced that they are wrong by someone simply telling them. That isn't effective...be willing to listen before you start to construct a response. If someone asks for a link, simply find a credible source as listed above and continue on from there.
Any time you make an extraordinary claim, it's your job to provide the proof...it's not our job to find it for you but rather to point out potential pitfalls. If those pitfalls can be addressed, it is, yet again, your job to fill them with solid evidence. That is how this works and it's the best way to ensure that people don't make claims without being able to support them.
On May 08 2012 08:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: Job creation is not keeping up with technical unemployment and this is a good thing. Dont you guys agree? oh and while im at i found the "we create food for 10 billion" i refrenced earlier
Also, where is your evidence regarding job creation?
600 million people unemployed should be enough.
Thanks to the link that proves a data point (food production) no one disagreed with
Alot of people in this tread disagreed and actively wrote how it was false yes and that iwas faking numbers on this.
And fifty years ago were those 600 million people's parents all employed...? Fact is, and this might suprise you, the most technologcially defeicient countries actually have the highest unemployment.
Yepp but its the developed countries that sets the tone for the future if we cant keep employment up they wont be able to when they catch up in advancement. Nice rhetoric tho.
But chillax peeps this a good thing means you can most likely play SC2 for the rest of your days if you want to without starving to death.
The developed countries are keeping up on a general level though. There's a reason they've mostly been stagnant at around 3-9% since WWII. (With a few exceptions, namely Russia and China) But hey, you're definetely right they might stop. We might also all die to a meteor tomorrow.
Iam not basing that of them either we accept that we are exploiting the third world or we assume that their inferior monkey creatures and thats the cause of all their ills.
Life is becoming easier and better each year escpially in the western world mostly due to our technological advancement. Our wellfare society that we are entering now will allow more people to express their creativity without worriying about having a job.
Sweden for example is a wellfare society and it is one of the reason we have many progamers with around 10% of Germanys total population and less then 3% of USA's population. obviously other things factor to such as gaming culture but its harder to become a progamer when you have to become a mininum wage worker at mcdonalds.
I'm sorry, but you literally keep changing your train of thought in the middle of your sentences. Are you pro-technology now? Just a few posts ago it was a demon that was stealing jobs...Also, how exactly are we exploiting third world countries, and how exactly is that providing US with jobs?
Haha, wait what? What does progaming have to do with any of this? And are you seriously suggesting that some people should get to play SC2 all day and other people should have to work to pay for that? wtf
No his idea is that technology has advanced to a point that we can afford to take care everyone, and that this needs to occur in a new system because capitalism is unable to provide for those that are unemployed due to these developments.
Thats basicly it yeah. When did you get so smart crushinator!
On May 08 2012 10:02 Grohg wrote: This thread has been entertaining up to this point...I'm sorry but I have to ask a few things Delicious. How much school have you gone through, do you know how scientific research is conducted/what the peer-review process is, and do you understand that linking youtube videos from news stations as proof/information is a terrible way to convince anyone that you're correct?
Here is a list of things to do that will help you convey your point more clearly:
1) Stop with the flowery language that has almost no real meaning and instead use a boring, terse writing style that will more effectively relay your message. Talking in hypotheticals is the equivalent of saying, "I don't know how it works but it sounds good to me." I'll assume you actually want to convince people, not compose poetic responses to peoples' questions.
2) Find his actual research papers that he submitted to PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. This the the most important thing you can do and it will appease a ton of the people lodging complaints about your position. If there is a scientific article that he has written, find it and link it to us to evaluate...any good research is transparent and open to critical analysis.
3) Don't post anecdotal evidence...that means that your experiences don't mean anything when it comes to a hypothesize economic system if you do not have cold hard facts/numbers to support your claim. If you claim that there are 600 million people unemployed, provide evidence with a link to something other than a youtube video you saw on the news, a wikipedia page, or a blog. The facts might be common knowledge to most people but it is important to give the information with a source to back it up. If you don't, people will think you are simply making up numbers.
4) Be open to the fact that you might not be right after all...everyone else in this thread wants to simply see something tangible. No one likes to be convinced that they are wrong by someone simply telling them. That isn't effective...be willing to listen before you start to construct a response. If someone asks for a link, simply find a credible source as listed above and continue on from there.
Any time you make an extraordinary claim, it's your job to provide the proof...it's not our job to find it for you but rather to point out potential pitfalls. If those pitfalls can be addressed, it is, yet again, your job to fill them with solid evidence. That is how this works and it's the best way to ensure that people don't make claims without being able to support them.
+1
I think it's important to aknowledge that people from very different backgrounds and very different levels of education are engaging in a discussion. The problem hereby is that no one really knows whom he is facing. His socioeconomic background, his knowledge about a topic, underlying ideologies etc...
Sometimes I feel I'm discussing and/or reading posts from some 18 year old kid fresh out of school or some undergrad student who is gaining some first insight into different topics... And sometimes... well I better don't say it.
I would really appreciate if people would state their background. Not to eliminate privacy or whatever but to foster a better discourse.
I start : Swiss, 26, last finishing my master thesis in international affairs and governance, I would say I have a fairly good understanding of political and economic interdependencies but lack sometimes specific knowledge and honestly don't know too much about the more complicated economic concepts anymore...
On May 08 2012 05:44 gmen650 wrote: I think we can all agree that resources are not infinite, so lets make this as simple as possible.
There are 3 people who want a computer, the computer store only has 2 computers due to scarcity of resources. Who gets the computers? 1st come 1st serve? Is that fair? What if all three arrive at the same time? That system would reward the fastest runners or drivers.
The fundamental problem is divying up scarce resources.
We already created over 7 billion computers most of them lie in a dump somewhere just like your cell phones. When you develop a product to last and to be interchangable in the first step of manucaturing we get superior products. That could never survive at a reasonable price at the market.
The best money can buy isent even close what we could get if everything was free. Right now were wasting resources in cyclical consumption (Buy>throw away) instead of (Collect>Update>recycle)
Delicious is pulling facts straight from hit arse. Anytime I see someone quote wikipedia or youtube for sources they pretty much lose all credibility with me. If you actually tried to publish something with those types of sources you would just be laughed at.
Maybe my example wasn't simple enough for you, lets use shoes instead. Can we agree there are only so many cows in the world to make the leather or whatever, basically theres not an infinite amount of shoes 3 people walk into the shoe store but they only have 2 pairs who gets the shoes? Maybe there is plenty of resources to make shoes for everyone, but how will distribution work? Truck drivers? Who would want to drive a truck all day when you can live comfortably staying at home all day?
I think we can all agree trolls exist, whats to stop someone from trolling and taking both pairs of shoes, or taking 100 shoes. There would need to be a regulatory body in place to monitor and regulate trade. Like socialism, however as we have seen in the past this much power leads to corruption (USSR, China, North Korea) and starvation.
I don't see why everyone is arguing about unemployment, this future claims no one would have to work. Unemployment shouldn't be an issue. But who would our doctors be, why would someone want to go to school for 10 years when they can live comfortably playing video games all day. This is a problem, and also why this will never work.
I think delicious refuses to accept that resources are actually scarce, if they weren't the world would be a much better place and everyone would be happy. Unfortuantly resources are clearly scarce and this, along with problems like innovation and incentive (what is one's incentive to innovate besides money? Fame?). These problems are why this system will never work. The USSR made that pretty clear, although you can look at economies like sweeden and see how well their socialist-like system works, but I argue it works because of a lack of immigrants and need for defense, but thats a different argument.
On May 08 2012 10:02 Grohg wrote: This thread has been entertaining up to this point...I'm sorry but I have to ask a few things Delicious. How much school have you gone through, do you know how scientific research is conducted/what the peer-review process is, and do you understand that linking youtube videos from news stations as proof/information is a terrible way to convince anyone that you're correct?
Here is a list of things to do that will help you convey your point more clearly:
1) Stop with the flowery language that has almost no real meaning and instead use a boring, terse writing style that will more effectively relay your message. Talking in hypotheticals is the equivalent of saying, "I don't know how it works but it sounds good to me." I'll assume you actually want to convince people, not compose poetic responses to peoples' questions.
2) Find his actual research papers that he submitted to PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. This the the most important thing you can do and it will appease a ton of the people lodging complaints about your position. If there is a scientific article that he has written, find it and link it to us to evaluate...any good research is transparent and open to critical analysis.
3) Don't post anecdotal evidence...that means that your experiences don't mean anything when it comes to a hypothesize economic system if you do not have cold hard facts/numbers to support your claim. If you claim that there are 600 million people unemployed, provide evidence with a link to something other than a youtube video you saw on the news, a wikipedia page, or a blog. The facts might be common knowledge to most people but it is important to give the information with a source to back it up. If you don't, people will think you are simply making up numbers.
4) Be open to the fact that you might not be right after all...everyone else in this thread wants to simply see something tangible. No one likes to be convinced that they are wrong by someone simply telling them. That isn't effective...be willing to listen before you start to construct a response. If someone asks for a link, simply find a credible source as listed above and continue on from there.
Any time you make an extraordinary claim, it's your job to provide the proof...it's not our job to find it for you but rather to point out potential pitfalls. If those pitfalls can be addressed, it is, yet again, your job to fill them with solid evidence. That is how this works and it's the best way to ensure that people don't make claims without being able to support them.
+1
I think it's important to aknowledge that people from very different backgrounds and very different levels of education are engaging in a discussion. The problem hereby is that no one really knows whom he is facing. His socioeconomic background, his knowledge about a topic, underlying ideologies etc...
Sometimes I feel I'm discussing and/or reading posts from some 18 year old kid fresh out of school or some undergrad student who is gaining some first insight into different topics... And sometimes... well I better don't say it.
I would really appreciate if people would state their background. Not to eliminate privacy or whatever but to foster a better discourse.
I start : Swiss, 26, last finishing my master thesis in international affairs and governance, I would say I have a fairly good understanding of political and economic interdependencies but lack sometimes specific knowledge and honestly don't know too much about the more complicated economic concepts anymore...
Go ahead!
I disagree i think the 4 points stated by Grohg where a inmature attempts to boost his crediability. And in response i think it is much more important to make an emotional point and remain calm then trying to blunt people down with walls of facts that will be belittled and ignored anyway.
I have been under attack by ten diffrent persons in over 30 pages in this tread, all i want is clean questions. people forget that this is about RBE and the Freeworldcharter video.
I also disagree with that it is important to share ones background, because someone that has an negative emotionr tied to you which is commen in treads like this, is only searching for an opportunity to belittle offend and cause emotional damage.
What if i say i was a proffesor in econmics? i would be the failed proffersor of economics that never did anything or published any books? what if i was a teacher in history? What does a teacher in history know about economics? What if i was a warehouse worker? There is no right answer.
All you need to know is i, i know nothing about nothing but compared to most i know alot about alot of things. Im still waiting on one clean question to turn this tread around.
To me, the sad thing is that those who believe in the charter's plausability aren't the ones I would choose to uphold it. Those who accept true humanity, and admit their flaws, are the more sensible ones capable of, "perfect," world. We aren't a hive. We don't work well together as a whole, but as small collectives at most (and independence being most common).
Delicious, I hate to inform you, but you dont know as much as you think you know. You are far from being knowledgable about any of the topics we have spoken about. You clearly lacked any clue about human biology while discussing the concept of human nature, and natural characteristics. You lack knowledge in politics, as you cant seem to realize that there needs to be a governing power to stabilize your fantasy land, yet it calls for total equality. You cant even grasp the comparisons between this and failed systems that attempted to promote similar "equality". You totally lack any knowledge of economics. You dont even understand basic concepts such as unemployment. You definitely dont understand resources, and you think there are far more available to us than there really are. You are definitely light years away from having any sort of philisophical knowledge. You have terrible argumentation techniques, you lack informed responses to questions, your ignorance and deflection of peoples posts is frustrating, you contradict yourself in consecutive posts on many occasions, you totally lack analytical thought, etc...
You, in 30 pages, have not managed to answer a single question effectively. You have failed to post even 1 source to support even 1 of your ideas. The only things you did post (youtube videos and wikipedia articles) all fundamentally opposed your stance within the first 1-4 sentences, or were written/said by people that are fundamentally opposed to your position, which clearly shows you either didnt read it, or cant understand it.
Then you accuse us of using the language of "war" or not askign you any questions. You are in serious need of help.
If you are intressted in doing activist work for an RBE group go to http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ Click action/chapters and find a chapter near you.
The video (which by the way blatantly lies about multiple things, such as technology being the reason for unemployment, and the abundance of resources, etc...) offers absolutely no ideas as to how to actually implement the things it claims we can do. It is entirely intellectually void. The website and charter do the same things. It asks if you agree with a bunch of utopian ideals, but offers absolutely nothing in the way of accomplishing those goals.
I am so frustrated by this thread, I really need to stop posting. The only people that have actually taken that horseshit video seriously have clearly proven they are insane. There is nothing left to do here. Good luck to whoever keeps posting in here. Just remember, facts and evidence arent needed to prove your points! Poems, propeganda and accusing those evil fact wanters of being war mongers is the best way to get people to agree with you!
On May 08 2012 10:02 Grohg wrote: This thread has been entertaining up to this point...I'm sorry but I have to ask a few things Delicious. How much school have you gone through, do you know how scientific research is conducted/what the peer-review process is, and do you understand that linking youtube videos from news stations as proof/information is a terrible way to convince anyone that you're correct?
Here is a list of things to do that will help you convey your point more clearly:
1) Stop with the flowery language that has almost no real meaning and instead use a boring, terse writing style that will more effectively relay your message. Talking in hypotheticals is the equivalent of saying, "I don't know how it works but it sounds good to me." I'll assume you actually want to convince people, not compose poetic responses to peoples' questions.
2) Find his actual research papers that he submitted to PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. This the the most important thing you can do and it will appease a ton of the people lodging complaints about your position. If there is a scientific article that he has written, find it and link it to us to evaluate...any good research is transparent and open to critical analysis.
3) Don't post anecdotal evidence...that means that your experiences don't mean anything when it comes to a hypothesize economic system if you do not have cold hard facts/numbers to support your claim. If you claim that there are 600 million people unemployed, provide evidence with a link to something other than a youtube video you saw on the news, a wikipedia page, or a blog. The facts might be common knowledge to most people but it is important to give the information with a source to back it up. If you don't, people will think you are simply making up numbers.
4) Be open to the fact that you might not be right after all...everyone else in this thread wants to simply see something tangible. No one likes to be convinced that they are wrong by someone simply telling them. That isn't effective...be willing to listen before you start to construct a response. If someone asks for a link, simply find a credible source as listed above and continue on from there.
Any time you make an extraordinary claim, it's your job to provide the proof...it's not our job to find it for you but rather to point out potential pitfalls. If those pitfalls can be addressed, it is, yet again, your job to fill them with solid evidence. That is how this works and it's the best way to ensure that people don't make claims without being able to support them.
+1
I think it's important to aknowledge that people from very different backgrounds and very different levels of education are engaging in a discussion. The problem hereby is that no one really knows whom he is facing. His socioeconomic background, his knowledge about a topic, underlying ideologies etc...
Sometimes I feel I'm discussing and/or reading posts from some 18 year old kid fresh out of school or some undergrad student who is gaining some first insight into different topics... And sometimes... well I better don't say it.
I would really appreciate if people would state their background. Not to eliminate privacy or whatever but to foster a better discourse.
I start : Swiss, 26, last finishing my master thesis in international affairs and governance, I would say I have a fairly good understanding of political and economic interdependencies but lack sometimes specific knowledge and honestly don't know too much about the more complicated economic concepts anymore...
Go ahead!
I disagree i think the 4 points stated by Grohg where a inmature attempts to boost his crediability. And in response i think it is much more important to make an emotional point and remain calm then trying to blunt people down with walls of facts that will be belittled and ignored anyway.
I have been under attack by ten diffrent persons in over 30 pages in this tread, all i want is clean questions. people forget that this is about RBE and the Freeworldcharter video.
I also disagree with that it is important to share ones background, because someone that has an negative emotionr tied to you which is commen in treads like this, is only searching for an opportunity to belittle offend and cause emotional damage.
What if i say i was a proffesor in econmics? i would be the failed proffersor of economics that never did anything or published any books? what if i was a teacher in history? What does a teacher in history know about economics? What if i was a warehouse worker? There is no right answer.
All you need to know is i, i know nothing about nothing but compared to most i know alot about alot of things. Im still waiting on one clean question to turn this tread around.
Under attack? People are voicing their opinions, stating facts, citing journals/sites with actual information - and you call it personal?
You sound exactly like those people who stand outside universities trying to recruit students to their 'causes' to liberate the world. When they barely know what they are doing; then cry wolf when people question their 'beliefs' and motives.
On May 08 2012 10:02 Grohg wrote: This thread has been entertaining up to this point...I'm sorry but I have to ask a few things Delicious. How much school have you gone through, do you know how scientific research is conducted/what the peer-review process is, and do you understand that linking youtube videos from news stations as proof/information is a terrible way to convince anyone that you're correct?
Here is a list of things to do that will help you convey your point more clearly:
1) Stop with the flowery language that has almost no real meaning and instead use a boring, terse writing style that will more effectively relay your message. Talking in hypotheticals is the equivalent of saying, "I don't know how it works but it sounds good to me." I'll assume you actually want to convince people, not compose poetic responses to peoples' questions.
2) Find his actual research papers that he submitted to PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. This the the most important thing you can do and it will appease a ton of the people lodging complaints about your position. If there is a scientific article that he has written, find it and link it to us to evaluate...any good research is transparent and open to critical analysis.
3) Don't post anecdotal evidence...that means that your experiences don't mean anything when it comes to a hypothesize economic system if you do not have cold hard facts/numbers to support your claim. If you claim that there are 600 million people unemployed, provide evidence with a link to something other than a youtube video you saw on the news, a wikipedia page, or a blog. The facts might be common knowledge to most people but it is important to give the information with a source to back it up. If you don't, people will think you are simply making up numbers.
4) Be open to the fact that you might not be right after all...everyone else in this thread wants to simply see something tangible. No one likes to be convinced that they are wrong by someone simply telling them. That isn't effective...be willing to listen before you start to construct a response. If someone asks for a link, simply find a credible source as listed above and continue on from there.
Any time you make an extraordinary claim, it's your job to provide the proof...it's not our job to find it for you but rather to point out potential pitfalls. If those pitfalls can be addressed, it is, yet again, your job to fill them with solid evidence. That is how this works and it's the best way to ensure that people don't make claims without being able to support them.
+1
I think it's important to aknowledge that people from very different backgrounds and very different levels of education are engaging in a discussion. The problem hereby is that no one really knows whom he is facing. His socioeconomic background, his knowledge about a topic, underlying ideologies etc...
Sometimes I feel I'm discussing and/or reading posts from some 18 year old kid fresh out of school or some undergrad student who is gaining some first insight into different topics... And sometimes... well I better don't say it.
I would really appreciate if people would state their background. Not to eliminate privacy or whatever but to foster a better discourse.
I start : Swiss, 26, last finishing my master thesis in international affairs and governance, I would say I have a fairly good understanding of political and economic interdependencies but lack sometimes specific knowledge and honestly don't know too much about the more complicated economic concepts anymore...
Go ahead!
I disagree i think the 4 points stated by Grohg where a inmature attempts to boost his crediability. And in response i think it is much more important to make an emotional point and remain calm then trying to blunt people down with walls of facts that will be belittled and ignored anyway.
I have been under attack by ten diffrent persons in over 30 pages in this tread, all i want is clean questions. people forget that this is about RBE and the Freeworldcharter video.
All you need to know is i, i know nothing about nothing but compared to most i know alot about alot of things. Im still waiting on one clean question to turn this tread around.
Yea you know who else tries to convince people with "emotional points" instead of "blunt people down with walls of facts" and ignore them anyways? The religious recruiters. And that's exactly what you sound like so far. Sprouting idealistic fantasies backed up by zero facts, trying to convince others simply by how wonderful the idea is without stating any plans on how we will actually get there.
It's impossible for us to communicate anyways, since our rationales are based on different mechanics. You based on faith and dream, while we based on logics and facts. So I'll deal with this exactly how I deal with those religious people: You keep your beliefs, and we'll keep ours.
EPT
