Thread: Century of the Self Documentary

Originally Posted by Hanna

Crocodile, don't you know that it's pointless to try to engage me in an exchange of long arguments and counter arguments....?

Yeah... as Lenin used to write: "Don't allow yourself to be dragged into a discussion." Those who discuss might change their minds or at least can start casting doubts in their beliefs. Just go on repeating slogans and mantras without looking around and stop your critical thinking process. Don't think - just act. Let those who write the long essays books discuss those point with each other. Don't spend your time discussing - just believe it's right. This way you would never become a brain-washed person like those poor people in the US who believe they're free and that is, in fact, the worst slavery.

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.

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 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"

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...)

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

Originally Posted by Seraph

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"?".

It wasn't my statement. I quoted someone else.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It wasn't my statement. I quoted someone else.

Apologies to you, Crocodile. You see, farming is something I know more about that just about anything else. And so when you said what you said about farming vs prehistoric practices, it immediately put my mind to all the herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and fertilizers and other things that are used, and run off, and form persistent ecosystem contaminants, or do other things like eutrophication, that I said you don't have any credibility. The general population knows very little about what goes on in agriculture, and feed lots, and abattoirs, and things like deforestation used for short term farming. But now I read that you specifically point out about chemicals, and so I know, yes you do know something about it. The scope and scale of modern practices is orders of magnitude beyond prehistoric ecosystem impact.