Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    Troll much?
    Well if you are going to accuse me of being a troll, atleast learn what the correct definition is and apply it correctly. Because, as clearly evidenced by my other posts in this thread, and my other 3000 posts, I actually post on here for discussion and not to deliberately get provoked responses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    :dontknow: They choose to buy it?

    I would only agree with him in the sense that the BBC, the free, state news outlet, inherently swings about like a rocket powered pendulum, and that shouldn't be the case.
    very true, after all it's government controlled
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jampolo)
    very true, after all it's government controlled
    Yay! Consensus!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    In truth, nobody has a right to anything. I could stick a gun up to your head and shoot you right now, and take away your right to life. I would just forfeit my own rights in the process.

    You don't inherently gain it and never get it taken away. It just becomes less likely, because people have to suffer the repercussions of their actions.
    True, thats the problem with society. I could kill anyone (not that i would) but a law just creates a consequence, its a means of prevention not a solution. Capitalism creates this.. Capitalism leads to crime. Crime will be everywhere, but in capitalist states its higher.

    To be honest i'd rather we all be communists with out 0 unemployment and 5 year plans

    On a serious note, one thing i dont understand understand about Capitalism, is Jacque Fresco, who lived during the great depression, said about how millions of people were out of work, but there were factories and offices, shops too! they were all just boarded up. All the resources were they. People could easily work there, but this 'depression' didn't allow it.

    I may be diverging into a more philosophical idea, but i think to myself. If we pressed the reset button on the world, would it be possible to live without money ? None of this mess we have here would have ever been created, or will money always be there as a utility?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jampolo)
    True, thats the problem with society. I could kill anyone (not that i would) but a law just creates a consequence, its a means of prevention not a solution. Capitalism creates this.. Capitalism leads to crime. Crime will be everywhere, but in capitalist states its higher.

    To be honest i'd rather we all be communists with out 0 unemployment and 5 year plans

    On a serious note, one thing i dont understand understand about Capitalism, is Jacque Fresco, who lived during the great depression, said about how millions of people were out of work, but there were factories and offices, shops too! they were all just boarded up. All the resources were they. People could easily work there, but this 'depression' didn't allow it.

    I may be diverging into a more philosophical idea, but i think to myself. If we pressed the reset button on the world, would it be possible to live without money ? None of this mess we have here would have ever been created, or will money always be there as a utility?
    No, because money is just representative of intrinsic value, it just makes trade easier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    I think you are confusing the right to life with the "right" to welfare.



    Oh dear.
    I would teach you something but i feel your not worth the time..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    No, because money is just representative of intrinsic value, it just makes trade easier.
    yeah its just that money is integrated so deeply into our system (well actually, i see money as physical notes, and due to the technological age were in, i'll say capital :P ) so we will never see the end of it.

    But its the main cause for all the greed in the world. I dont like how such a small % have such a large share of all the money on this earth
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jampolo)
    yeah its just that money is integrated so deeply into our system (well actually, i see money as physical notes, and due to the technological age were in, i'll say capital :P ) so we will never see the end of it.

    But its the main cause for all the greed in the world. I dont like how such a small % have such a large share of all the money on this earth
    Humans will always be greedy, money facilitates that in a non-violent manner. Humans will always want something that the other hasn't got, its part of us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Humans will always be greedy, money facilitates that in a non-violent manner. Humans will always want something that the other hasn't got, its part of us.
    I just feel saying humans will always greedy is excusing it. Im not sure if you've heard of a film called Zeitgeist, but they interview a neuresurgeon, a professor from oxford and another gene related expert, and they all say how most of our characteristics simply come about because of what were experienced to as a child. ;EDIT - and as a fetus

    Not saying this is true either, but in places were people dont have a lot of money or are relatively poor, are happy people ! I guess im sort of falling into the topic of materialism, but the one with a lot less are happier!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jampolo)
    I just feel saying humans will always greedy is excusing it. Im not sure if you've heard of a film called Zeitgeist, but they interview a neuresurgeon, a professor from oxford and another gene related expert, and they all say how most of our characteristics simply come about because of what were experienced to as a child. ;EDIT - and as a fetus

    Not saying this is true either, but in places were people dont have a lot of money or are relatively poor, are happy people ! I guess im sort of falling into the topic of materialism, but the one with a lot less are happier!
    We call that an Appeal to authority, it does not necessarily a validation of the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    If technology has replaced everyone's jobs then I suppose everyone must be unemployed by now then? Oh wait that didn't happen did it. Technology leverages labour it doesn't replace it. Any idiot should be able to understand that, or should we add luddite to your growing list of superlatives. I'm trying to make my argument as simple as possible for you to understand. Perhaps I shall make a nursery rhyme for you. You assume that commodity value is only gathered from land and capital, another false assumption. Do I have to start quoting Adam Smith and the invisible hand at you?





    It's up to the people of that country. There is a reason why we have revolutions from time to time.



    No one is forcing these people to work. If five pence paid my living expenses and a little extra then why not? According to whose morals?



    If it wasn't worth their while to work for a specific rate, then they wouldn't do it. If any capitalist country's firms could set up, there would be competition for labour and so labour rates would move to the equilibrium. What is unfair about that?



    No it doesn't. They move because labour is cheaper there but still high enough to attract workers in the first place.




    It proves that ownership has increased rather than decreased as you believe. Well avoided though. And I suppose you don't think government intervention played any part in leading up to these events?



    Eh, no I haven't, you have. I never said anything of the sort. The stock market is division of ownership. If you can't see that and believe I meant it to be a division of labour you are even more dumb than I thought. :eek: Oh and the little Indonesian boy is very welcome to buy shares in whatever company he wishes.



    Through Pension funds a lot of people own the means of production and have the opportunity to own the means of production through shares.

    Workers can invest there wages in whatever they want and hence become owners themselves.

    Indeed the stock market is. At least we agree on one thing.

    Perhaps instead of quoting Marx every 10 seconds you should maybe consider thinking for yourself? Or as I suspect, you tried this once, realised you weren't too successful and decided to veil your intellectual inadequacies by quoting people who died over 100 years ago. Marx may have been misguided, but at least he was capable of original thought, something that clearly evades yourself.
    Dude, you tried to defend capitalism by advocating the stock market.

    At this stage I stopped taking you seriously, so i'm afraid I won't take the time to read the above post.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Bold.
    Ok, you made some effort to go around the houses there, or at least it seems like you did. But it still looks as if you do accept the ultimate physicality and ultimate cause and effect nature of the generation of thought. Once you have this as your starting point it becomes quickly obvious that the physical structure which constitutes the generation of a 'choice' must have an antecedent matrix of previous physical structures and which stretch back in time, from one moment to another. Even setting aside such things as socialisation, experiential feedback and responses to specific environmental contexts (which are very important by the way) any notion of 'choice' as some metaphysically 'free' phenomenon, i.e. how it is popularly 'understood', is in big trouble with the scientific evidence.

    I prefer to use the term 'necessary'. People do what is necessary to them at any given moment as their 'choice formation' determines it, whether we're talking about trivial matters, like icecream choices, or more serious ones, like whether they think they should go shoplifting that day, or apply for such and such a college course.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Very good. I like that. I didn't do GCSE's but anyway..............

    I'm not arguing with you about the scarcity of land and natural resources, obviously. I'm disagreeing with you on how these are distributed under a capitalist system.

    Under such a system it would go to the highest bidder. Humans can either buy land or rent it. Meaning everyone has access to land not just the "capitalist pigs". You suggest that without vast access to land then you cannot possibly live. This is clearly rubbish. In a capitalist system the distribution of land is equitable not "inequitable", this is the whole point you are missing. Your whole argument is based on a false assumption.
    Dude, I can only go around in circles with you for so long, especially when you're repeatedly ignoring (or failing to understand) my point. Access to land and resources is necessary for human life and those who monopolise it, by one means or another, necessarily alienate the remainder from its direct benefits and thus subject them to their only practical alternative, wage-labour (hence exploitation). I'm not going to go around in circles with you anymore because you either don't get this or are deliberately ignoring its implications.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Humans will always be greedy, money facilitates that in a non-violent manner. Humans will always want something that the other hasn't got, its part of us.
    Humans have all kinds of behavioural potentials. They can be greedy, they can also be co-operative, generous, sacrificial and selfless. Among the various dishonesties of libertarians and their like (yes, based on my experience I do think libertarians are routinely intellectually dishonest) is their attempt to present some human behavioural potentials (the ones that suit their rather negative image of humanity) as if they represent something more than this, as if they are the behavioural 'centre ground' or 'human nature' if you will. The evidence to be found in the most pertinent fields, such as anthropology and sociology (among others) shows strong evidence that it is the nature of the societies we emerge and live within which determines which human behavioural potentials flourish and which don't. In plain language, if we live in an economic and social system which favours greed, humans will tend to be greedy, if we live in an economic and social system which favours cooperation and mutual support, we'll be cooperative and mutually supportive. In reality most human societies are complex and conflictual enough to give space for the whole array of human behavioural potentials, though some, as suggested, will gain more prominence than others should arrangements encourage it. It is thus a repeated dishonesty (or at best an honest and flat out error) when libertarians attempt to paint 'human nature' as inherently and centrally 'greedy'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Dude, I can only go around in circles with you for so long, especially when you're repeatedly ignoring (or failing to understand) my point.
    I've dealt with this point 3 times now.

    Access to land and resources is necessary for human life and those who monopolise it, by one means or another, necessarily alienate the remainder from its direct benefits and thus subject them to their only practical alternative, wage-labour (hence exploitation).
    What you suggest doesn't prevent access.You have a very poor understanding of what a monopoly is.

    I'm not going to go around in circles with you anymore because you either don't get this or are deliberately ignoring its implications.
    Yes, let's not. I love how when marxists can't convince someone of their folly it's obviously because they "don't understand it". Pathetic.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    Ok, you made some effort to go around the houses there, or at least it seems like you did. But it still looks as if you do accept the ultimate physicality and ultimate cause and effect nature of the generation of thought. Once you have this as your starting point it becomes quickly obvious that the physical structure which constitutes the generation of a 'choice' must have an antecedent matrix of previous physical structures and which stretch back in time, from one moment to another. Even setting aside such things as socialisation, experiential feedback and responses to specific environmental contexts (which are very important by the way) any notion of 'choice' as some metaphysically 'free' phenomenon, i.e. how it is popularly 'understood', is in big trouble with the scientific evidence.

    I prefer to use the term 'necessary'. People do what is necessary to them at any given moment as their 'choice formation' determines it, whether we're talking about trivial matters, like icecream choices, or more serious ones, like whether they think they should go shoplifting that day, or apply for such and such a college course.
    To use an example from the book I am reading, if you imagine the mind as a series of interconnected modules, a scanner, an interpreter, a sensor, a resolver etc. and then imagine that in each different human being these modules are 'set' differently, these different settings affect how those modules respond and operate in different situations, and that is what I believe makes you, you. There is still hard determinism involved [What you talk about] involved, it is just that people are not necessarily absolved from responsibility of choice, because they themselves are part of the filtration process.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baffled_mathman)
    I think that was you, telling me that "rebutted" should be "rebuttled" then "rebuttal" (both wrong). If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, at least get it right! :rolleyes:

    A "grammar Nazi" who actually knows their stuff always looks better than someone who incorrectly uses the "after s" apostrophe just to try and look clever! ;-)
    Your grammar here is wrong.

    Your use of quotation marks in "after s" is incorrect, as it is not a quotation. You should in fact have done it like so: 'after s'.

    I find your failure amusing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Relaxicat)
    Your grammar here is wrong.

    Your use of quotation marks in "after s" is incorrect, as it is not a quotation. You should in fact have done it like so: 'after s'.

    I find your failure amusing.
    You are wrong. I find your idiocy and trolling to be tragic.

    Have a look here, you might just learn something:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

    Edit: Is this site full of idiots who think they're geniuses?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    To use an example from the book I am reading, if you imagine the mind as a series of interconnected modules, a scanner, an interpreter, a sensor, a resolver etc. and then imagine that in each different human being these modules are 'set' differently, these different settings affect how those modules respond and operate in different situations, and that is what I believe makes you, you. There is still hard determinism involved [What you talk about] involved, it is just that people are not necessarily absolved from responsibility of choice, because they themselves are part of the filtration process.
    The more you search for free will, the harder it is to find.

    Going along with your analogy, what 'part' is you? Surely how a brain responds to it's environment requires no free will or internal agent? And while on the line of neuroscience, the brain has made an unconscious decision over an action around 7 seconds before your conscious choice. The feeling of deliberation is an illusion.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    To use an example from the book I am reading, if you imagine the mind as a series of interconnected modules, a scanner, an interpreter, a sensor, a resolver etc. and then imagine that in each different human being these modules are 'set' differently, these different settings affect how those modules respond and operate in different situations, and that is what I believe makes you, you. There is still hard determinism involved [What you talk about] involved, it is just that people are not necessarily absolved from responsibility of choice, because they themselves are part of the filtration process.
    I'm kinda with you right up to when you say "...it is just that people are not necessarily absolved from responsibility of choice because..." You seem to magically posit the 'self' as if outside of the cause and effect processes which you otherwise recognise as generating what we might otherwise call 'choice making behaviour'. I think that you are indulging in some kind of non sequitur here. If we recognise that every aspect of what we otherwise call a 'choice' is generated through some kind of cause and effect matrix (or modules if you prefer) then where is the 'space' for responsibility? In crude terms there's input, there's machinery which processes that input, and then there's output, none of this seems to make room for some mysterious detached force which can be held 'responsible' as the term is ordinarily applied. Let me put it another way, if any gven specific set of circumstances and inputs mechanistically generate a specific response, at what point do we say "there", "there is the point at which the causes and effects become a matter of responsibility"?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.