Thread: Century of the Self Documentary

When all else fails, you start quoting Lenin, I have noticed Maybe you you have a soft spot for him after all, or why do you quote someone you don't like?
Got 'ya Croc!

And PS; I did not always hold the opinions I do now - I have already thought about it and come full circle.

Originally Posted by Hanna

When all else fails, you start quoting Lenin, I have noticed Maybe you you have a soft spot for him after all, or why do you quote someone you don't like? Got 'ya Croc!

You know me for so long and you don't know me at all! I can agree with and quote whoever I think has a good point. I do not support any specific ideology. Some of my views are right, some of them are left. Sometimes, I totally agree with the foreign US policy, sometimes I throw my hands in despair by a mere look at it. To sum it up, I'm not an ideologist of any kind, but just a person crocodile. Also, it's very important HOW the opinion was acquired, because it makes a tremendous implications for the bottom line. For example, let's take your view on Esperanto as a fair international language. Your opinion on that matter is very solid as you were practically engaged in many situations around the foreign languages and learned different aspects of it. As a result, your opinion is solid, you can defend it with a phrase or two to the very point and be very convincing. You don't need some lengthy essays to defend it. On the other hand, unfortunately, you are unable to demonstrate that property with respect to the other issues, like the Socialism, or the party system. That clearly indicates that your opinion on those issues was formed arbitrarily, without much thinking and weighing the alternatives. So, when you face a need to defend it, you simply can't so you choose to reply with untrustworthy arguments, and when it doesn't work, you let your mind to comfortably rest into the ignorance. Earlier, you mentioned you definitely are not brain-washed, and that, I think, creates some kind of disconnect with the reality. I'm not urging you to believe in the US-style capitalism, the Sweden-style socialism, or the Antarctic-style anarchy. The only think I'm urging you to do is to wake up.

Originally Posted by Hanna

And PS; I did not always hold the opinions I do now - I have already thought about it and come full circle.

Yes, I'm pretty sure you have. At that time you haven't had any opinion yet. But as soon as you formed your opinion based on your experience that was at hand at that time, it's now rock and solid. Nothing could ever shatter that. Alas, that's not the way a scientist (Political or otherwise) should approach the reality. Ask it-ogo.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

... But as soon as you formed your opinion based on your experience that was at hand at that time, it's now rock and solid. Nothing could ever shatter that. Alas, that's not the way a scientist (Political or otherwise) should approach the reality. Ask it-ogo.

In the sciences you will encounter concepts, experiments, theories etc that range from extremely highly reliable, highly predictive, to ones that are rather less so.

X-ray crystallography, mass spectrometry, Newtonian mechanics/physics, wave and particle physics etc. If you believe any real scientist has much doubt about many of these things and their results, you're shooting in the dark. If you bring up any evidence or experiments contesting any of this stuff, you're discussion may be received politely, or perhaps not, but it will almost certainly not sway anyone, and would probably be laughed off the stage, like some a flat earther Ludite. On the other hand there are new theories, new experiments, new results that are in a grey area, where there is a lot of controversy. In these areas, scientists may behave as you suggest, reserving opinion until sufficient data has accumulated, and a sufficient theoretical framework that has some predictive capability has emerged.

The point is, that scientist have some opinions that are rather unshakable and rock solid, and are not as reserved as you believe they ought to be, while in other grey areas they will be. In other words, some experiences are capable of engendering rock solid opinions, because they have massive predictive ability.

...and from another thread

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's not the consumption that's doing the damage to the environment, but in order to keep up with the consumption and the population growth we need a better technology. Compare the way we produce the food these days (farming) with what we used to do in the Paleolithic Age - hunting. It wasn't renewable back than and it's renewable now. As a result, we adversely affect the environment MUCH LESS (in this respect alone) than those guys who allegedly live in harmony with the Nature. And there are many more of us too. Viva to the technogaianism!

With this, you have skewered your credibility.

Originally Posted by Seraph

X-ray crystallography, mass spectrometry, Newtonian mechanics/physics, wave and particle physics etc. If you believe any real scientist has much doubt about many of these things and their results, you're shooting in the dark. If you bring up any evidence or experiments contesting any of this stuff, you're discussion may be received politely, or perhaps not, but it will almost certainly not sway anyone, and would probably be laughed off the stage, like some a flat earther Ludite. On the other hand there are new theories, new experiments, new results that are in a grey area, where there is a lot of controversy. In these areas, scientists may behave as you suggest, reserving opinion until sufficient data has accumulated, and a sufficient theoretical framework that has some predictive capability has emerged.

True words. And I'm not about to dispute the laws of thermodynamics or insist on the positive sides of Slavery (e.g. the full employment! yay!). So, would you compare, say, the perspective on capitalism or democracy to the still grey areas or to the time-proven ones? Is there still some controversy (maybe just a little bit) on the issues like corporations role in a society, capitalism or globalization or those issues have 150-years history of almost universal disapproval and could simply be dismissed with something like: "I don't think that you believe that corporatism, capitalism or globalism are good and positive forces"? Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Originally Posted by Crocodile

... So, would you compare, say, the perspective on capitalism or democracy to the still grey areas or to the time-proven ones? Is there still some controversy (maybe just a little bit) on the issues like corporations role in a society, capitalism or globalization or those issues have 150-years history of almost universal disapproval and could simply be dismissed with something like: "I don't think that you believe that corporatism, capitalism or globalism are good and positive forces"? Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

It is not possible to discuss these accurately in broad lumps. Capitalism, democracy, corporations, are not single items/concepts. A company that makes whole wheat bread is very different from one that manufactures DU munitions. Companies that manufacture bicycles or that recycle materials are very different than finance and insurance corporations with international reach. Small, local competitive corporations are very different from natural monopolies. Making blanket statements is not possible.

Originally Posted by Seraph

It is not possible to discuss these accurately in broad lumps. Capitalism, democracy, corporations, are not single items/concepts. A company that makes whole wheat bread is very different from one that manufactures DU munitions.

Sheesh, why "whole wheat" bread specifically? Why "DU" munitions specifically?

(Possible answer: Because Seraph travels in circles where being "pro-whole-wheat" and "anti-DU" are the most fashionable positions to hold; but to be "pro-white-bread" is unfashionable, and to be "pro-DU" is somewhere between heresy and insanity. I mean -- what's with the simplistic black-and-white dichotomies, Seraph? I thought it was only right-wing idiots like Bush and Palin who refuse to speak about shades of gray...)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Sheesh, why "whole wheat" bread specifically? Why "DU" munitions specifically?

Specifically, whole wheat and DU are not required. The activities of corporations are sufficiently diverse as to make it impossible to make blanket statements such as Crocodile's, from above ""I don't think that you believe that corporatism, capitalism or globalism are good and positive forces"?". Capitalism likewise is not a single thing and so no blanket statement can be made about it like that. No, I don't move in anti-DU circles, with bias for whole wheat.