Conspiracy

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Conspiracy

Home // Conspiracies and Theories

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:08 am Post subject:

Well, like i said. I don't like anarchism because i enjoy electricity and running water.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:13 am Post subject:

Private generators and tank water, anarchism does not neccesarily mean lack of resources.

Anarchism is really just a lack of rulership, rather than the lack of organization.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:20 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

Private generators and tank water

But where do you get the generator? the tank? the copper wiring the connect the generator to things? the lightbulbs? the computers? etc.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:42 am Post subject:

People can still work together in anarchy, they just don't have to if they don't want to.

Docsmitter
Known Associate

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 311
Location: CA LE FOR NYE YAY

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject:

Lester wrote:

People can still work together in anarchy, they just don't have to if they don't want to.

Anarchy looks great on paper, along with marxism, and pure communism... but it doesn't really work. Especially anarcho-socialism.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:30 am Post subject:

Thats the standard response, Docsmitter, and there is an element of truth, communism hasn't worked yet(anarchism has, the iroquis are a good example) but how many times did democracy fail before *it* worked?

And even if it doesn't work, pure communism is a utopia, shouldn't we strive for that even if it is impossible? Do you only fight the fights you know you'll win? Besides that, we will never know for sure that communism won't work. Shouldn't we work towards it on the possibility that it might work? even on the possibility of a possiblity, to reach utopia, it's worth it.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:12 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

People can still work together in anarchy, they just don't have to if they don't want to.

And the same goes for modern civilization.

No one is forcing you to stay. You can go live in the wilderness if you'd like.

If, however, you want the conveniences that modern civilization allows for, you've got the play by the rules. That's what "civilization" is all about.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:41 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

(anarchism has [worked], the iroquis are a good example)

Indeed.
No running water, electricity, or anything of the sort. Awesome.

Quote:

And even if it doesn't work, pure communism is a utopia, shouldn't we strive for that even if it is impossible?

No.

You know what it's called when someone attempts to do something that they can be absolutely sure will end in failure?
Stupid. Really, really stupid.

There's nothing romantic about giving it your best when you already know that you're doomed to failure.

Quote:

Do you only fight the fights you know you'll win?

I only fight the fights that i think i can win, yes.

To do otherwise is foolish. Extremely foolish.

In fact, that's practically the stuff that natural selection is made out of. That's how stupid people get weeded out of the gene pool.

Quote:

Besides that, we will never know for sure that communism won't work.

And we'll never know for sure that I'm not god.

Being "sure" is a very bad way of decision making.

A better way of thinking about it is, "how much money would i bet on it?"

Quote:

Shouldn't we work towards it on the possibility that it might work?

When it's almost certain to fail, and we have good, viable alternatives?

No.

Quote:

even on the possibility of a possiblity, to reach utopia, it's worth it.

No, it isn't. Not when you know ahead of time that you're going to fail.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject:

exton wrote:

Lester wrote:

(anarchism has [worked], the iroquis are a good example)

Indeed.
No running water, electricity, or anything of the sort. Awesome.

At the time the Iroquis were around the british didn't have this either so you know...

Quote:

And even if it doesn't work, pure communism is a utopia, shouldn't we strive for that even if it is impossible?

But we're *not* absolutely sure, thats the point, and besides, even if we fail, at least we'll get to something better than this stagnant cesspool of a system.

Quote:

Do you only fight the fights you know you'll win?

No, natural selection is about coming up with new ideas and new systems, better ways of doing things, humans prospered because we started to use tools, communism is just another tool like civilization, and a much better one than capitalism.

Quote:

Besides that, we will never know for sure that communism won't work.

And we'll never know for sure that I'm not god.

Being "sure" is a very bad way of decision making.

A better way of thinking about it is, "how much money would i bet on it?"

We will know for sure your not God, your not all-powerful, hence not God, I would bet everything I owned for tickets into a lotto that jackpotted at worldwide utopia, I hope you'd do the same.

Quote:

Shouldn't we work towards it on the possibility that it might work?

When it's almost certain to fail, and we have good, viable alternatives?

No.

It's not almost certain to fail, and yes the alternatives are viable, but they are in no way good.

Quote:

even on the possibility of a possiblity, to reach utopia, it's worth it.

No, it isn't. Not when you know ahead of time that you're going to fail.

[/quote]

Thomas Edison used to say he found a hundred ways not to make a lightbulb, but he kept trying, and guess what? He brought light to the world. We haven't even failed a hundred times, we haven't even failed ten times!

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 1:21 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

exton wrote:

Indeed.
No running water, electricity, or anything of the sort. Awesome.

At the time the Iroquis were around the british didn't have this either so you know...

And yet, it's still a bad example.

I'd like an example of an anarchic society (oxymoron) that has the benefits of modern society.

Quote:

But we're *not* absolutely sure, thats the point,

You said "even if it's impossible".

When something is impossible, you know that you will fail, by definition.

Quote:

and besides, even if we fail, at least we'll get to something better than this stagnant cesspool of a system.

Society is not stagnant. Far from it. Things are changing - and improving - at an increasing pace.

Quote:

And we'll never know for sure that I'm not god.

Being "sure" is a very bad way of decision making.

A better way of thinking about it is, "how much money would i bet on it?"

We will know for sure your not God, your not all-powerful,

Ah, but can you prove that i'm not all-powerful?

You can't.

Quote:

hence not God, I would bet everything I owned for tickets into a lotto that jackpotted at worldwide utopia, I hope you'd do the same.

I don't play the lottery, and i don't sign up for raffles.

Quote:

When it's almost certain to fail, and we have good, viable alternatives?

No.

It's not almost certain to fail, and yes the alternatives are viable, but they are in no way good.

They seem to work pretty well to me.

Quote:

No, it isn't. Not when you know ahead of time that you're going to fail.

Thomas Edison used to say he found a hundred ways not to make a lightbulb, but he kept trying, and guess what? He brought light to the world. We haven't even failed a hundred times, we haven't even failed ten times!

Ah, but that's not what i said.

When you KNOW that you will fail, it's foolish to try.

Moreover, in thomas edison's time, it was quite clear that electric lighting was physically possible. He wasn't stumbling around in the dark, not by any means.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:19 am Post subject:

1. So would I, but no-one even wants to try, so large scale hasn't happened, but I'm sure if you surf around you could find a commune of some sort.

2. Impossible to reach true communism, yes, you should still try, because you get closer to it, you can't just think in terms of success or failure, you have to think of what you can accomplish by giving it your best in a hopeless situation.

3. Really? Perhaps in the scientific world, but man hasn't become any more moral than he was fifty or three hundred years ago.

4. I can prove that, if you were all powerful you would not need to type responses on this board, people would believe you simply because you want them too.

5. When the jackpot is world utopia? You wouldn't give up anything at all for that? Then why do you even try to make things better at all?

6. Working well and being good are completely different things.

7. Quite clear? The man was ridiculed for his ideas before he did it, and for all his failures.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject:

Lester wrote:

1. So would I, but no-one even wants to try, so large scale hasn't happened, but I'm sure if you surf around you could find a commune of some sort.

Yep. You can.

But you'll never find a self-sufficient society like that. The communes that choose to have electricity are able to do so because they can buy the equipment. They don't make it.

Quote:

2. Impossible to reach true communism, yes, you should still try, because you get closer to it, you can't just think in terms of success or failure, you have to think of what you can accomplish by giving it your best in a hopeless situation.

Your goal isn't very clear.
IF the goal is true communism, then you should quit, because you will fail.
IF the goal is something other than communism, maybe that's plausible.

It is not rational to attempt to do something when you know it is impossible. It's reasonable to reach for less, but that means that you're actually reaching for less - you're not trying to achieve an impossible goal.

Quote:

3. Really? Perhaps in the scientific world, but man hasn't become any more moral than he was fifty or three hundred years ago.

Mankind is substantially more civilized than in the past centuries. What would make you think otherwise?

Times past weren't great. They actually kind of sucked.

Quote:

4. I can prove that, if you were all powerful you would not need to type responses on this board, people would believe you simply because you want them too.

You're assuming that i want them to.

And that's the problem: if i say "i don't want to", then there's really no reply you can give to prove otherwise.

Like, say you told me to move something with my mind. I could say "hmm. no.", and you will have proven nothing about my lack of ultimate power.

Quote:

5. When the jackpot is world utopia? You wouldn't give up anything at all for that? Then why do you even try to make things better at all?

I'm quite confident that we can achieve a civilization that has no war and no one in need.

But it's not as easy as saying, "well, gee, we'll just work together!"

The solution is ultimately technological, and that could take centuries. And the sociological problems will take centuries to sort out also.

I try making things better because, when things are better for mankind as a whole, they're better for me too.

Just because i can never expect to reach "perfect" doesn't mean i shouldn't try to better my condition.

Quote:

6. Working well and being good are completely different things.

I don't see how. A solution to a problem that works well is a good solution.

Quote:

7. Quite clear? The man was ridiculed for his ideas before he did it, and for all his failures.

Believe it or not, thomas edison was not working against a giant wave of nay-sayers. He wasn't the only person who thought of electric lighting, and he wasn't even the first person to accomplish it.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:11 am Post subject:

1. The same logic could be used to say democracy isn't truly self-sufficient, it's just survived so far because it can get resources from monarchies. Besides, the world won't all be turned to pure communism in a day, so a communist country could still work quite well, if not better than other countries at the present time.

2. I didn't say it was rational. But if I did know for sure that true communism was impossible(which I never could), then I could still strive for it as a means of cheiving smaller goals.

3. I quite agree, but times right now aren't much better. If better at all, slaves had a better quality of life than sweat shop workers do, because they had food and shelter and protection.

4. There is a response I can give, that there are times when some people are convinced and some are not. In which case, not all powerful.

5. Your right, it's not just that easy, you actually have to work together in equality as well, saying it won't do much. Yes, if somewhere in your mind you don't have aspirations of perfection, then you would have no ambition, this is going a little into psychology, but the "oedipidal project" whereby one wants to replace his father and in essence become his own creator, brings the goal of perfection into sight, because the creator, or so we imagine, is perfect.

6. Overpopulation is a problem, genocide is a solution that works well, is it a good solution? Not at all, it's horrendous and inhumane.

7. Yes, but you claimed that it was "quite clear" that electric light could be produced in the form of a lightbulb, if there was even a semblance of resistance, then it obviously wasn't.

exton
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:47 am Post subject:

Lester wrote:

1. The same logic could be used to say democracy isn't truly self-sufficient, it's just survived so far because it can get resources from monarchies.

That is inaccurate.

Quote:

2. I didn't say it was rational.

Why would you do something that's irrational?

Quote:

But if I did know for sure that true communism was impossible(which I never could), then I could still strive for it as a means of cheiving smaller goals.

As do we all.
But, as i said, that's completely different from striving for an impossible goal.

Quote:

3. I quite agree, but times right now aren't much better.

How so?

Quote:

If better at all, slaves had a better quality of life than sweat shop workers do, because they had food and shelter and protection.

The quality of life that a slave had was largely dependent upon who owned him. You can't really make a general statement about living conditions, and if you tried to, it would end up more on the negative side.

And what percentage of the world population consists of sweatshop workers? How many people find the existence of sweatshop workers acceptable? (that's different from wanting or being able to do something about it)

Quote:

4. There is a response I can give, that there are times when some people are convinced and some are not. In which case, not all powerful.

Ah, but that doesn't follow - who are you to say that it wasn't my intention that they be convinced, or not convinced?

Quote:

5. Your right, it's not just that easy, you actually have to work together in equality as well, saying it won't do much. Yes, if somewhere in your mind you don't have aspirations of perfection, then you would have no ambition,

That is a misleading, if not entirely false, claim. As perfection is entirely subjective, you can give it any meaning you'd like, in your own mind or someone else's. You can therefore claim that pretty much any true aspirations about to perfection. Being able to say that, you reender the concept of "perfection" meaningless. If anything can be considered perfect, then it's nonsense to use the concept at all.

Quote:

this is going a little into psychology, but the "oedipidal project" whereby one wants to replace his father and in essence become his own creator, brings the goal of perfection into sight, because the creator, or so we imagine, is perfect.

That's not psychology (the modern science), that's freudian nonsense.

Quote:

6. Overpopulation is a problem, genocide is a solution that works well, is it a good solution? Not at all, it's horrendous and inhumane.

If confine your consideration to ONLY overpopulation, then genocide is, in fact, a good solution.

However, real life doesn't work that way.
After all, WHY is overpopulation a problem? There's nothing inherently bad about a large number of people.
No, the problem is that too many people use too many resources, leaving little or none for everyone, thus making everyone miserable and dead.

Genocide doesn't really solve the problem when you consider it that way; sure, you don't have a lot of people any more, but everyone is still miserable and dead. You've ultimately accomplished nothing.

Quote:

7. Yes, but you claimed that it was "quite clear" that electric light could be produced in the form of a lightbulb, if there was even a semblance of resistance, then it obviously wasn't.

I apologize for my ambiguity. When i say "quite clear", i mean, "frankly obvious to any person who has any education on the subject, and who bothers to give it some actual thought and consideration".

Most people don't fall into that category; i don't consider the opinions of the common person to be valid indications of reality. Most people are, in fact, quite stupid, and should not be consulted on matters of great complexity and importance.

Lester
Forum Elder

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:37 am Post subject:

1. Exactly, and so was your statement.

2. Because there are two parts of the brain, left and right, and the right side doesn't dominate thinking.

3. Not at all, you can strive for impossibility knowing that it's impossible but that you can make things better.

4. I gave an example, but another, still tonnes of executions, still wars, still genocide, still racism and intolerance, sure there are peaceful nations, but we had those in the middle ages too!

5. It's true the quality of the food shelter and protection varied, but they still had it, because otherwise they would die, and it's not good to have corpses for slaves.

6. Some have never posted in this thread before, so you could not design your statements for them, having no prior knowledge of them, having all power is not the same as having all knowledge.

7. Not at all, there is a definition of perfection that everyone will agree on, and I gave it some time before.

8. Of course it started with freud, but it hasn't been cast aside, it's still quite valid in modern psychology. "The denial of death" was written within the last ten years, and it makes strong use of the phenomenon. And not all freud was nonsense.

9. Not *everyone* is miserable and dead, and the problem over population is that there is not enough space for all humans, so to that, genocide is a solution that works well.

10. I don't claim to be an expert, but I had thought that some prominent scientists of the time had great doubts about his ability to achieve it.

	LVC Home // Conspiracies and Theories	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory