Thread: Century of the Self Documentary

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.

I am glad that you respect my views on something at least, Croc (i.e. languages).
But I maintain that politics is a subjective thing and it's almost impossible to say who is right or wrong. There are so many factors that play in.

For example, the politics that would "work" in one smaller European country for example, might be completely useless in a very big country, like Russia or the USA. That way, I could be right in what I am saying, and a Russian or American person could also be right at the same time.

And you can quote Lenin as much as you want; I think it's interesting (I hardly know anything about him), and I remember that you have already written that he had many worthwhile things to say. I am aware of your philosophy that all comments should be supported by sources or facts. Was just teasing you!


ANYONE WHO WANTS TO DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENTARY:

http://torrage.com/torrent/E1E34FF0F...F30B19.torrent

It's also available in full on Youtube. Here is a random part:

Originally Posted by Hanna

...But I maintain that politics is a subjective thing and it's almost impossible to say who is right or wrong. There are so many factors that play in. ...

I believe that it is not that subjective. It's well revealed in the tax policies. Who's getting the free lunch, and who's getting the short end. Very clear cut. And the taxation policies are in line with the bulk of other types of policies.

Originally Posted by Seraph

I believe that it is not that subjective. It's well revealed in the tax policies. Who's getting the free lunch, and who's getting the short end. Very clear cut. And the taxation policies are in line with the bulk of other types of policies.

Ahh... with this, you have skewered your credibility. And on your own sword.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But I maintain that politics is a subjective thing and it's almost impossible to say who is right or wrong. There are so many factors that play in.

I was stressing the point of HOW the views are being obtained and/or defended. To say the political views are being subjective is just another cool way to dodge the answer. You mentioned earlier you hate politicians who lie. But, if you insist all political views are subjective, there can't be any lies, right? So what if the US says there were WMD in Iraq and it turned out there weren't. It's all subjective. Their subjective view that stood behind the invasion was that there WERE WMDs in Iraq, so why were you blaming them of telling a lie? The State Deparement THINKS there should be democracy and freedom in Libya and the Libyans want the democracy. So, why are you upset? You think Libyans won't get more freedom? It's all subjective, so they will. More US bases overseas (especially in Europe) is just another cool thing. That would protect the freedom. Just in case. It's all subjective. Do you see my point?

Ok that IS an interesting perspective Croc.

I don't agree with it though. I think that they can THINK what they like - the problem is that the USA takes action around the globe based on subjective info. That is what I don't like.

And "US bases are cool" incidentally, that's exactly what they are trying to make people think with their cheezy base radio stations, "open days" and other campaigns.
But "I ain't buyin' it"

P.S. Regarding Crocodile's statements about Paleolithic food-production -- Croc definitely should've used some qualifying phrase like "per capita", but otherwise the observation has empirical evidence from archeology to support it.

For example, some Paleolithic hunters definitely used the hunting method of "stampeding the entire herd of bison over the cliff to their deaths; then butchering five or six bison for their meat and hides while leaving the rest of the dead animals to rot in the sun." * On a per capita basis (that is, considered as a ratio of the number of animals killed against the number of humans who were sustained by the meat and hides harvested) this stampede-hunting was almost unbelievably wasteful and inefficient, but since human populations were so small, the inefficiency wasn't very destructive to the environment. Also, some primitive agricultural peoples used the wasteful practice of deliberately burning down large areas of forest or grassland in order to kill two birds with one stone: it quickly got rid of the native plants so that the open fields could be planted with crops, and also enriched the soil with ashes.

Nowadays, we are in many ways vastly more efficient at food production, but our population numbers are also vastly larger, and thus our "total environmental footprint" as a species is bigger/worse than in Paleolithic times.

* At least some American Indians apparently continued to use this method until Europeans reintroduced ** the horse to North America, as well as firearms. Horses and guns from Europe made it possible for Native Americans to hunt more selectively and efficiently than they ever had in pre-Columbian times, killing only as many animals as they needed. Meanwhile, some of the Europeans went around shooting thousands of bison just "for sport" from moving trains, thus helping to create the modern perceptions about wasteful white people vs. indigenous-brown-people in harmony with Mother Earth.

** Some scientists believe that horses went extinct in the Americas (where they had originally evolved, and had lived for millions of years) because they were overhunted by the prehistoric humans who had recently invaded arrived in the Americas from Siberia. So the Europeans HAD TO "reintroduce" the horse to America because the ancestors of nature-loving Amerindians had totally wiped out the animals! Mind you, this theory is difficult to prove with certainty, and an alternative hypothesis is that long-term climate changes and the resulting changes to vegetation were the main factor that killed off the equines in their native continent. It may also be that there's truth to both hypotheses -- that climate change had caused the population of horses to shrink dramatically, and overhunting by prehistoric humans was the "final nail in the coffin". There's little doubt, however, that Paleolithic hunters who arrived via the Bering Strait did cause "stress" to indigenous American mammal populations, thousands of years before the white Europeans arrived across the Atlantic.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Nowadays, we are in many ways vastly more efficient at food production, but our population numbers are also vastly larger, and thus our "total environmental footprint" as a species is bigger/worse than in Paleolithic times.

Well, overall it definitely is, but I think I mentioned that magic "in that aspect alone" excuse phrase. We don't hunt for food, so even though our population is larger than in the Paleolithic, we still hunt for food much less than we used to. However, we have other adverse effects indirectly caused by the food production, especially the chemical production. And we have other areas of production which are not environmentally-friendly. Anyways, my whole point was that the living standards does not necessarily directly linked to the relative environmental harm, rather the opposite might be true. Hanna insists her logic of: "Oh, if Africa would start living like the US, our planet ecology would collapse! So, don't believe in the Capitalism which urges to live the consumerist style but believe in the Socialism which doesn't ..." and so forth. All I was trying to say that one of the major nature destruction happens in Africa. People there live in so harsh conditions that they don't find any will to care about the environment. It's the Americans and the Europeans which find time and will to collect the used batteries and dispose of them properly. The environmental impact directly depends on the TECHNOLOGY and not on the DISTRIBUTION. If the planet territory is not enough, we can take off and terraform Mars or Venus for example, or live in the donut space stations. Or whatever. The Socialism vs the Communism vs the Capitalism is mostly about the distribution of goods and services and not about care for the Mother Nature.

Originally Posted by Hanna

the problem is that the USA takes action around the globe based on subjective info. That is what I don't like. the problem is that the USA takes action around the globe based on subjective info. That is what I don't like.

Sure, it's your right to buy whatever you like or like whatever you buy, but it's subjective, so no complaints in this forum about that, please.

Just so there's no confusion, I want to make clear that while some of the people on this thread have obvious biases, I myself have well-grounded opinions.

In much the same way that Britons, Australians, African-Americans, and white people from New Jersey and Texas all have accents, but I speak Normal English without any accent at all!

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Ahh... with this, you have skewered your credibility. And on your own sword.

We can discuss marginal tax rates and depreciation schedules if you wish. And corporate tax rates and exemptions if you wish, comparing to personal tax regulations. And how they relate to other policy issues, and other social issues. And how they lead inevitably to events, like poverty, or hunger, or protests, or not, as the case may be. How subjective is a balance sheet? The protests are subjective, the hunger and poverty are real, but the policy issues that lead to them are crystal clear and not subjective. Policy can be used to increase prosperity, subjectivity is not really required to improve the standard of living, if that is what is wanted. These issues are political, and sociological, and the numbers tell what is really going on. But if you are not used to examining such things, I suppose they might appear subjective.
In other words, you can tell objectively if a person is starving. It is not really subjective what needs to be done to fix the problem. The problem can be fixed objectively. But perhaps it is not generally known how the tax code relates to this and other issues. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Or to make flourish.
St. Paul didn't particularly care if people thought he was a fool, and so neither should I, I suppose. Knowing the tax code makes up for it, in my wallet.

Originally Posted by Seraph

We can discuss marginal tax rates and depreciation schedules if you wish. And corporate tax rates and exemptions if you wish, comparing to personal tax regulations. And how they relate to other policy issues, and other social issues. And how they lead inevitably to events, like poverty, or hunger, or protests, or not, as the case may be. How subjective is a balance sheet? The protests are subjective, the hunger and poverty are real, but the policy issues that lead to them are crystal clear and not subjective. Policy can be used to increase prosperity, subjectivity is not really required to improve the standard of living, if that is what is wanted. These issues are political, and sociological, and the numbers tell what is really going on. But if you are not used to examining such things, I suppose they might appear subjective.
In other words, you can tell objectively if a person is starving. It is not really subjective what needs to be done to fix the problem. The problem can be fixed objectively. But perhaps it is not generally known how the tax code relates to this and other issues. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Or to make flourish.
St. Paul didn't particularly care if people thought he was a fool, and so neither should I, I suppose. Knowing the tax code makes up for it, in my wallet.

Food is objective. Understood. We know where it comes from, how much it weighs, what it's made of. It's not a model or representation of nutrition - no, it's food. Objective.

Money? Not objective. Even its value and meaning are transient concepts. We can't say what it is, what it weighs, what it means - it's a model, and an inaccurate one - or at least a highly fluid one. It's mired in subjectivity, and that even still is an attempt at mathematizing and mapping the human value system, in which politics and money are both central, which one could equate to an ocean of mutable, shapeless subjectivity. We can try all day, but we aren't going to objectify the subjectivity of human value. Which is of course part and parcel with politics (leadership - kingship? alphaship?) and money (clams, koku, pork bellies?) ... What's the value of a pork belly to a hungry man? (Not a common question on wall st)

Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know..

..and maybe it's just me. Maybe I fell and hit my head on the way to work today. But how could all of Politics and Money be objective? Why would we need a voting system, two parties, a system of checks and balances, an electoral college, and all that - if it were all objective, we would have one totalitarian leader, and no one would question it, because who could question the objective?

And, just a small example of subjectivity: "the power to tax" is mitigated by a subjective force called "the people's willingness to stand by and be taxed." To quote (probably to my ultimate demise - watch me get banned for quoting hip hop) Tupac: "Bush wanna throw down, he better bring the guns out - now they wanna ship me off to Kuwait - gimme a break - how much <stuff> can a <person> take.. - <forget> bailin' hay, I'm bailin' straight with an AK" ----> the subjective line of rebellion rests just beyond the "objective" threshold of taxation.. be it monetary, military, spiritual or property.. (And on close inspection I find that all the 'objective' in politics and money becomes 'subjective' when transmuted to such form by the human observer.)

This response sucks compared to the first one I wrote, but I deleted it.. It was not my intention to come off as an adversary.. I think we disagree, but that doesn't mean I can't be civil. =)

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Food is objective. &c...Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know..

I think there is a little misunderstanding here. Greenspan made terrible mistakes. As far as I'm concerned much of Wall st. are criminal establishments, as indicated by so much documentation that they would never be able to refute. Saying that the tax policies tell us what is going on does not mean that I agree with all the tax policies. What I'm saying is you can sort much of the wheat from the chaff and the bluff and bluster in a straight forward way. For example Republican or Democratic leadership says something. But how much is it preaching to their respective choirs? It is very easy to tell objectively in implemented tax codes. What are the established political parties really up to? What do they say? What does the press say? There is a tremendous amount of confusion in political discussion, done on purpose I might add, for special interest purposes. But you can tell what is really going on by looking at things like tax codes, other policies are usually in line with these. That is, one can readily discern the true intents in politics by looking objectively at those sorts of things. That is the sort of real balance sheet inspections I'm referring to, not the fantasy creations of predatory financial interests of the likes of Wall st. It just so happens that some of problems can be solved by appropriate tax policies. But you've made up your mind. So why waste words? Some people think that government IS the problem. In my opinion, it is bad governance that is the problem, not good governance that is the problem. Some will say "but that's subjective". I'll tell you what I'm talking about from another field. It was known for many years that things like benzene, asbestos, and other chemicals were causing health problems for workers in many fields. It took many decades to ban them or restrict their use. Why so long? Is this really that subjective? The chemicals should have been restricted promptly. It wasn't something anyone could really argue about, it was completely obvious that the chemicals were causing problems. When things are actually known to be problems like benzene, asbestos and other carcinogens, they should be restricted. It looks objective to me. But industry slowed it down. This is bad governance. We also know of such things in taxation. Things that are bad for the economy. But special interests keep bad legislation on the books, and promote more. We know objectively that certain policies are problems, and they should be stopped. But people say, like the corporations dragging their feet about benzene and asbestos "that's just subjective". I think that perhaps the disagreement is more about definitions about what objective and subjective are, than about substance. But maybe you think asbestos is ok. I am for healthy and safe work conditions for workers. If workers say something in the work environment is causing problems they should be listened to right away, not seventy years later. The same goes for the economy. We know things in place right now are causing problems. It really is as clear cut as the cases about asbestos and benzene, even though it is in a different field. But special interests say "it's just subjective, you don't have any real proof that these tax loopholes are causing problems" Perhaps you don't know that Wall st. hedge fund lobbyists have been able to have enacted special low tax rates, that are lower than you and I could ever get for such high incomes as they get. Have it your way. Vote for agent orange if you want.
Try telling the kids up and down your street that money isn't what they think it is.

Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

Originally Posted by Seraph

.... Quote from Mr. KBoom: "Many times in the history of humanity has someone claimed that their stone-tablet balance sheet, their abacus, their papyrus, notebook, i-pad, contained numbers that would objectively solve the financial problems of the leader/king/world.. Most recently, Greenspan.. all were wrong, as far as I know.." It's comical that you should whinge about Wall st. while spouting this stuff. The last thing that Wall st. wants is anyone fixing the system. Taxation is one of the ways that would clamp down on them, but you didn't bother to ask how. You didn't bother to ask how can taxation improve the economy. And now I certainly won't bother to tell you how.
I'm glad I know what's under the hood. I'm glad I listened to people and asked questions "how does that work? Why is it like that?" "That's interesting tell me some more about it." I'm glad I went to the library and looked things up. I know what's coming down the pipe.
But then I have no credibility. So why are you reading this? Try duking it out with this guy:William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've bothered to ask how taxation would clamp down on "Wall st." I may not have developed an emotionally-charged interest in this issue which I consider to be penultimately grey and emotionless - for instance, I would not stay up late at night reading economics books by candlelight, because they're not enthralling to me - but aside from that, I'm a good student and a good learner. A more fitting point might be the generally nebulous nature of these sorts of abstractions. If you were to gather any ten thousand people from anywhere in the world (outside of upper-class suburbs near to Ivy-league colleges, I suppose) those ten thousand people would, by and large, NOT understand what you're talking about. The same can be said about most economic writing that has been put to paper in the last several decades.... I'm not the oddity, or an ignorant person, to not readily know "what's under the hood." Rather you're the oddity, as a person who knows "what's coming down the pipe."

And what I've noticed about people who know "what's coming down the pipe" is that they primarily don't "bother" to tell the rest of us what exactly it is that they know.

I've already stated, or at the very least had meant to, that I agree with you that certain realities, like asbestos, are largely objective - given that the majority of people don't want a random, pointless and difficult-to-explain death - but should we lay some of these other objectivities out into plain sight, and put them into words that the rest of us 9,999 people could digest, then I suspect we'll find that these issues are largely NOT objective. Until we've done so, this is only a guess on my part.

And as for the credibility - rather than considering who's right or wrong, maybe we should consider for a second whether telling someone that they have no credibility, whether it's you OR me saying it, is perhaps beyond the boundaries of what's polite and proper in discussing an issue.

Tell you what: If I were to pay you for this premium information, let's say, $50, to go over with me for an hour what you know, would you then be willing to tell me what you know? It certainly sounds like valuable information, especially if it has the power to predict what's coming in the future. I would be willing to pay for that kind of an inside track.

Or if that's not a good method, maybe you can suggest a book, a writer, or even a topic wherein I should begin my research. Then we can speak again in the future, and maybe I will have risen myself up to a level of knowledge that will allow us to more freely discuss this topic. It's not fair that a person as educated as you should have to discourse with a person who merely desires to know what's going on, and has not "bothered" to do the proper research to follow in your footsteps.

In shorter words... How does this work? Why is it like that? It's interesting. Tell me some more about it.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

...In shorter words... How does this work? Why is it like that? It's interesting. Tell me some more about it.

I'll send you some links, things to read, videos. Too much to send in one go.

It's good to see that you have watched the century of Self, Hanna, but it still hasnt knocked any sense into your head. You understand how people are manipulated but you are still manipulated.
This talk of left and right is meaningless. The USA does not make its own foreign policy and neither does any one else. The BBC, CNN, FOX are controlled. Listen to what Ronald Reagan said in 1964:
YouTube - &#x202a;Agenda 21: Deliberate Flooding of America's Heartland by Army Corp of Engineers - Alex Jones Tv 2/2&#x202c;&rlm;

He was talking about a former plan which is the same as the current NWO plan to get people off the land and into the cities called Agenda 21.

And as far as "taxes". Read the report from the Reagan era. It was called the Grace Report. It reports that 100% of income taxes pays off the federal debt (which is the debt that is the accumulating interest paid the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. ALL of our INCOME taxes is paid to the Federal Reserve for them to print the money. The tax is NOT used for what you think it is used. Almost all countries are using a similar bank and they are ALL connected and OWNED by the same people!)
Read page 6 and 12 of this PDF file of the actual Grace Report. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12098298/Gra...m%20Report.PDF

Foreign politics is meaningless. Why do you think that Obama is not doing what he said he would do.