Former conspiracy believer here

[Belz...]

It does not fit any set of facts.

Of course it can. It's the textbook example of "unfalsifiable".

It is, I submit, an entirely valid construction to account for events that have occurred, particularly when one considers the lack of a coherent OT.

Still waiting for evidence that it's sound, though.

Show me where a CT opposer has admitted that it's potentially valid. They can't go there emotionally. That's my interpretation.

MY interpretation, is that CTers play the emotion card whenever they can, trying to cover their lack of evidence. But not you, right ?

Their minds have developed a rigidity to keep out unwanted ideas and they figure that if you just stay rigid, never examine the premises that allow objectivity, then their lives will stay ok.

How do you figure that ? Again, you might want to follow real psychology classes.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, it is a fact that PM doesn't know "what I am looking" but they and you are welcome to guess.

Not that part. You said the consequences were obvious. In YOUR opinion.

Well, as I said I am no theorist, so my answers will be limited. However, an idea that can be applied is the idea that profits are not the highest priority. Other priorities that could be addressed are the availability of a living wage, access to health care, clean and safe working conditions...perhaps also the ability to unionize in order to protect what you have and guarantee that you won't be exploited in the future. These are all things we take for granted working in the US for example...and the result is many american companies move their business to third world countries where these basic things are grossly lacking....but hey thats free trade right!

How does that maintain equality ?

 

[chipmunk stew]

It does not fit any set of facts. It is, I submit, an entirely valid construction to account for events that have occurred, particularly when one considers the lack of a coherent OT.

"The Illuminati did it" is no different, from the standpoint of presenting a valid hypothesis, than speculating that "God did it". It can be used to cover any gap or any perceived gap in an explanation.

You're implying that the status quo explanation of 9/11 is not coherent. I find that laughable. The mainstream narrative is meticulously documented from start to finish. It's as solid and coherent a theory as they come.

There is no narrative involving insider involvement that comes close to this level of coherence.

Show me where a CT opposer has admitted that it's potentially valid. They can't go there emotionally. That's my interpretation. Their minds have developed a rigidity to keep out unwanted ideas and they figure that if you just stay rigid, never examine the premises that allow objectivity, then their lives will stay ok. Maybe they will.

Skeptics generally consider every idea potentially valid. We're more interested in whether or not a particular idea actually is valid. You'll find some of the most flexible minds in the world among the skeptics.

Is that a quoted position of the forum? I'm interested.

The forum does not take positions on anything other than rules of discourse.

 

[Nick227]

"The Illuminati did it" is no different, from the standpoint of presenting a valid hypothesis, than speculating that "God did it". It can be used to cover any gap or any perceived gap in an explanation.

But I am not saying that the illuminati did it. I am saying that that which has happened to a large number of poorer countries that the WB and IMF were helping out (!) is that they have been dragged into a global economic superstate without any meaningful say in the matter, very frequently to their considerable detriment. It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do Illuminati. It has everything to do with pursuing a covert strategy to further globalisation.

Their is no official OT, as far as I'm aware, apart from some vague statements from the WB when subjected to questioning by various humanitarian groups. The alternative explanations are...that they were incompetent, which I considerable barely credible, especially when one considers the immense gain that the WB, IMF and their sponsors have accrued, or.....that they are simply exploiting the **** out of poorer countries in classic colonialist fashion, which I do consider credible, but no more so than the enforced globalisation option.

You're implying that the status quo explanation of 9/11 is not coherent. I find that laughable. The mainstream narrative is meticulously documented from start to finish. It's as solid and coherent a theory as they come.

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. I believe the NIST report. I'm by no means convinced that 911 wasn't organised from within but this is a separate matter from the WB and IMF.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Still waiting for evidence that it's sound, though.

For a start, you have proven utterly incapable of providing an alternative explanation for events and have simply wriggled out of it when asked to do so. Given that I'm already pretty convinced that you're actively terrified of CTs, to me I consider these events alone a basic level of evidence. You can falsify my proposal easily by coming up with a better explanation. When you actually have the courage to get off the fence and do that, then we shall take a look at it.

MY interpretation, is that CTers play the emotion card whenever they can, trying to cover their lack of evidence. But not you, right ?

I'm not being emotive. I'm pointing out that your behaviour around these issues is consistent with someone who is terrified of CTs. That's cool. But then at least have the decency to admit it.

Nick

ps, re your postscript...What exactly is this irrecoverable insight that allows our infinitely ineffective masters to fail to rule us from deep within their impenetrable penumbra?

Why not debate a little philosophy and see for yourself that objectivity itself proceeds from completely unproven assumptions, that the subject-object divide is entirely hypothetical and does not survive objective investigation itself? I mean, it's nearly 2500 year old stuff so I'm sure a modern and well educated fellow like yourself will be able to easily overthrow it. Whaddya say?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Not that part. You said the consequences were obvious. In YOUR opinion.

It's not really opinion though...many have an opinion as to the how and why, but the fact remains that the consequences are real, and there, and for the world to see..hence obvious.

How does that maintain equality?

Well...it helps maintain it. I am not saying there is some fool proof plan out there that will rid the world of poverty and inequality...it's really more about providing a level playing field. One thing it would do is increase the effected individuals agency which would certainly have beneficial side effects.
Just in case you don't know what I mean....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

 

[PixyMisa]

But I am not saying that the illuminati did it. I am saying that that which has happened to a large number of poorer countries that the WB and IMF were helping out (!) is that they have been dragged into a global economic superstate without any meaningful say in the matter, very frequently to their considerable detriment. It has nothing to do with God. It has nothing to do Illuminati. It has everything to do with pursuing a covert strategy to further globalisation.

But, as we have constantly pointed out, you have no evidence of anything of the sort.

Their is no official OT, as far as I'm aware, apart from some vague statements from the WB when subjected to questioning by various humanitarian groups. The alternative explanations are...that they were incompetent, which I considerable barely credible, especially when one considers the immense gain that the WB, IMF and their sponsors have accrued, or.....that they are simply exploiting the **** out of poorer countries in classic colonialist fashion, which I do consider credible, but no more so than the enforced globalisation option.

Why is incompetence so unlikely? The law of unintended consequences is universal. And when well-meaning idiots are spending with other peoples money through multiple layers of intermediaries in remote locations with lax financial reporting laws, you're going to end up with disasters more often than not.

If you're careless with huge amounts of money, you're going to attract a whole lot of flies, and at the end the money will be gone with little to show for it. If it's a loan, rather than direct foreign aid, then the borrowing country is left with a lot of debt for little benefit.

No conspiracy is required to explain the outcome, nor is there any evidence of such. But there is ample evidence of greed and stupidity.

I think you've got me mixed up with someone else. I believe the NIST report. I'm by no means convinced that 911 wasn't organised from within but this is a separate matter from the WB and IMF.

And again, you have a belief based not on evidence, but on a preconception of how the world works.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Why is incompetence so unlikely? The law of unintended consequences is universal. And when well-meaning idiots are spending with other peoples money through multiple layers of intermediaries in remote locations with lax financial reporting laws, you're going to end up with disasters more often than not.

If you're careless with huge amounts of money, you're going to attract a whole lot of flies, and at the end the money will be gone with little to show for it. If it's a loan, rather than direct foreign aid, then the borrowing country is left with a lot of debt for little benefit.

No conspiracy is required to explain the outcome, nor is there any evidence of such. But there is ample evidence of greed and stupidity.

As big of a surprise as this might be to some people...I have to say I agree with PM here...to a degree...and I agree with Nick a bit... here is some easy reading that does a nice job of summarizing whats going on, and do read the other points offered up on the site as this quote hardly covers it:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt.asp

1-The legacy of colonialism — for example, the developing countries’ debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing states, in billions of dollars, at very high interest rates.

2-Odious debt, whereby unjust debt is incurred as rich countries loaned dictators or other corrupt leaders when it was known that the money would be wasted. South Africa, for example shortly after freedom from Apartheid had to pay debts incurred by the apartheid regime. In effect, South Africans are paying for their own oppression.

3-Mismanaged spending and lending by the West in the 1960s and 70s

In effect, due to enormous debt repayments, the poor are subsidizing the rich.

Internal watchdog slams World Bank agriculture programs in Africa since 1991
Here is article critical of WB argriculture policy:
http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.3544.aspx

It criticizes the lack of a unifying perspective on agricultural development: "The lending support from the Bank has been "sprinkled" across various agricultural activities such as research, extension, credit, seeds, and policy reforms in rural space, but with little recognition of the potential synergy among them to effectively contribute to agricultural development." The reports finds, in fact, that "none of the top 10 borrowers…had received consistent and simultaneous support across all critical subsectors."

Here's more from the first site:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp
They go in depth about "Structural Ajustments"...a major problem area...

Many developing nations are in debt and poverty partly due to the policies of international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

Their programs have been heavily criticized for many years for resulting in poverty. In addition, for developing or third world countries, there has been an increased dependency on the richer nations. This is despite the IMF and World Bank’s claim that they will reduce poverty.

Following an ideology known as neoliberalism, and spearheaded by these and other institutions known as the “Washington Consensus” (for being based in Washington D.C.), Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) have been imposed to ensure debt repayment and economic restructuring. But the way it has happened has required poor countries to reduce spending on things like health, education and development, while debt repayment and other economics policies have been made the priority. In effect, the IMF and World Bank have demanded that poor nations lower the standard of living of their people.

 

[Belz...]

For a start, you have proven utterly incapable of providing an alternative explanation for events and have simply wriggled out of it when asked to do so.

Nick, you're not reading what I post and I'm going to make it easy for you to understand, now:

I _Never_ said I had an alternative explanation nor do I need one for what I said to be true.

What I said, if you remember and if you even bother to read this post, is that your "theory" might seemingly "fit" the facts, but that, since any number of other conceivable theories (notice that I don't say that there ARE other theories, necessarily) could also fit the facts, the only way to make sure which one is correct is through evidence.

Are you reading this ?

Given that I'm already pretty convinced that you're actively terrified of CTs

Why would I be terrified of something held by a minority of people who never get out of their homes ?

You can falsify my proposal easily by coming up with a better explanation.

There is no world-spanning, sinister organisation bent on making people's lives miserable. That's MY explanation, and it's better.

Now, how is your theory falsified ? Oh, wait. EVIDENCE falsified theories, not other theories.

When you actually have the courage to get off the fence and do that, then we shall take a look at it.

What fence ? I already said I don't subscribe to your interpretation.

I'm not being emotive.

That's not what I said. You're demonstrating the usual CTer's lack of reading ability. You said "They can't go there emotionally. ", meaning that you think skeptics have some form of mental problem that prevents them from being objective. What I said (sigh... again) is that you're playing the emotion card, attacking the character of your opponents rather than presenting evidence of your claims.

I'm pointing out that your behaviour around these issues is consistent with someone who is terrified of CTs.

Again, Nick, any number of other theories would be consistent with my behaviour. Again, you're making up your conclusion and working backwards from it. That is NOT objective. What you should do is use evidence to REACH a conclusion, or suspend judgment.

Can you "go there", emotionally ?

ps, re your postscript...What exactly is this irrecoverable insight that allows our infinitely ineffective masters to fail to rule us from deep within their impenetrable penumbra?

You're confused. I never said this.

 

[Belz...]

It's not really opinion though...many have an opinion as to the how and why, but the fact remains that the consequences are real, and there, and for the world to see..hence obvious.

Then would you mind presenting them ?

And learn to use the quote function properly. How am I supposed to know you were replying to me ?

Well...it helps maintain it.

That does not answer my question. HOW does it help maintain it ?

 

[Nick227]

But, as we have constantly pointed out, you have no evidence of anything of the sort.


Why is incompetence so unlikely? The law of unintended consequences is universal. And when well-meaning idiots are spending with other peoples money through multiple layers of intermediaries in remote locations with lax financial reporting laws, you're going to end up with disasters more often than not.

If you're careless with huge amounts of money, you're going to attract a whole lot of flies, and at the end the money will be gone with little to show for it. If it's a loan, rather than direct foreign aid, then the borrowing country is left with a lot of debt for little benefit.

No conspiracy is required to explain the outcome, nor is there any evidence of such. But there is ample evidence of greed and stupidity.

Come off it, PM! A group of bankers and politicians sat down at Bretton Woods in the early 40s and created the vehicles by which globalisation could be furthered. The pattern of activity of the WB and IMF over decades to me very much substantiates this proposal. They have pursued a near identical strategy of financial low-intensity conflict in a multitude of poorer nations, and one after the other these nations have been dragged into a global economic superstate in which they have, to all intents and purposes, no control over their destiny whatsoever. I submit that this interpretation of WB and IMF activity is patently bloody obvious, to anyone who isn't dwelling in LaLa Land, from even a cursory examination of the historically records facts of their activities.

You can go live in some dreamworld if you wish, and believe that these guys were the mysterious benefactors of their own tragic financial incompetence. I don't buy it.

BTW, I know some guys who sell some very excellent timeshare deals in the Canaries, if your interested. Why not buy some stock in Northern Rock too while you're at it?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I _Never_ said I had an alternative explanation nor do I need one for what I said to be true.

Hi again Belz,

You said that there was only one sound explanation. Now you say that you never said that you had it. You can't find an alternative explanation for the events I've quoted repeatedly. Let me make this real easy for you......The WB and IMF have been pursuing a covert strategy to further globalisation for decades. There you go. It fits the recorded historical facts. Now just repeat it three times an hour for the next couple of days and you will feel much better.

What I said, if you remember and if you even bother to read this post, is that your "theory" might seemingly "fit" the facts, but that, since any number of other conceivable theories (notice that I don't say that there ARE other theories, necessarily) could also fit the facts, the only way to make sure which one is correct is through evidence.

It's a shame there isn't an Olympic event for fence-sitting really. You could be famous, dude.

Why would I be terrified of something held by a minority of people who never get out of their homes ?

Look inside and find the answer.

There is no world-spanning, sinister organisation bent on making people's lives miserable. That's MY explanation, and it's better.

Then account for the activities of the WB and IMF. BTW, I have not stated that any such organisation is bent on doing evil. I support the Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Now, how is your theory falsified ? Oh, wait. EVIDENCE falsified theories, not other theories.

I think you will find that if there is only one one coherent explanation for events then this will be accepted as factual, regardless of the presence of direct evidence or empirically substantiable data.

In this case, I am not saying that there is only one coherent explanation. I'm saying that the covert globalisation explanation is, imo, the best one. You yourself appear to be validating it by, I submit, failing in rather a spectacular manner to provide an alternative.

That's not what I said. You're demonstrating the usual CTer's lack of reading ability. You said "They can't go there emotionally. ", meaning that you think skeptics have some form of mental problem that prevents them from being objective. What I said (sigh... again) is that you're playing the emotion card, attacking the character of your opponents rather than presenting evidence of your claims.

I am saying that the objectivity of at least several list members I regard to be considerably in question. I believe they have a subconscious need not to believe in the CT possibility here. If I recall, PM even flat denies the existence of an unconscious mind.

In metaphorical terms, some of you guys have had your head's rammed so deep inside a pipe for so long that you think that that's reality. It's not. Mindlessly lauding objectivity simply demonstrates you haven't applied its tenets thoroughly enough. As Socrates pointed out aeons ago, the source of wisdom lies in the awareness that actually you know nothing. Objectivity proceeds from an unexamined premise. There's no direct evidence to substantiate the subject-object divide. There's not even any circumstantial evidence. All there actually is is hearsay. On the basis of just rumour pipe-dwellers like PM and yourself attempt to construct hard and fast rules about the nature of reality. If it wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.

Again, Nick, any number of other theories would be consistent with my behaviour. Again, you're making up your conclusion and working backwards from it. That is NOT objective.

It's highly objective and widely used. The cops do it all the time, for example. Scientists do it. They call it seeking to validate a hypothesis.

What you should do is use evidence to REACH a conclusion, or suspend judgment.

Again, you're just demonstrating ignorance of scientific and philosophical method.

Can you "go there", emotionally ?

In the case of the WB and IMF, it could be that it's just corruption and old colonialist practices, for sure. The "incompetence" option I struggle with personally. Regarding 911 I don't have a problem with the NIST report. I'm pretty suspicious about who gave the hijackers their info, but it certainly could be that the OT is largely correct.

You're confused. I never said this.

PM wrote it and you quoted it. I thought maybe you'd like to try and uphold it. Clearly not!

Nick

 

[Belz...]

You said that there was only one sound explanation. Now you say that you never said that you had it.

That's right. That's like saying that there is a way to make grand unification theory work. It doesn't mean you know what it is.

You can't find an alternative explanation for the events I've quoted repeatedly.

Now, that's a stretch. I sure can. But that wasn't the point. Of course, NOW the point is becoming more and more that YOU can't read.

It fits the recorded historical facts.

You haven't been paying attention.

I say it's elves. Elves did it. It fits the facts.

EVIDENCE, Nick. Not speculation.

Now just repeat it three times an hour for the next couple of days and you will feel much better.

Why should it matter what I "feel" about it ?

It's a shame there isn't an Olympic event for fence-sitting really. You could be famous, dude.

That's a nice way to dodge what I said. Could you actually, you know, respond to what I say instead of diving into sarcasm ?

Look inside and find the answer.

I find it quite arrogant of someone to claim he knows what other people feel. Would you mind ?

Then account for the activities of the WB and IMF.

I don't care to. My position is clear: you cannot claim something is true just because it fits the facts. It remains speculatory, and you need evidence to convince anyone, competing theories or not.

BTW, I have not stated that any such organisation is bent on doing evil. I support the Novus Ordo Seclorum.

Sure, whatever.

I think you will find that if there is only one one coherent explanation for events then this will be accepted as factual, regardless of the presence of direct evidence or empirically substantiable data.

I think you will find that I already disagree with you on this.

In this case, I am not saying that there is only one coherent explanation.

But you just did!

You yourself appear to be validating it by, I submit, failing in rather a spectacular manner to provide an alternative.

Nick, you seem to be ascribing to me goals that I do not have. My purpose right now is to show that you are wrong in assuming your speculation to be true just because it seems to fit circumstantial evidence. I am not here to find out the "truth". That's a completely different debate.

I am saying that the objectivity of at least several list members I regard to be considerably in question.

Why ? Because they disagree with you ? I should hope not.

I believe they have a subconscious need not to believe in the CT possibility here.

Why ? It's not as if conspiracies don't exist.

I find it ALSO arrogant when people style themselves as psychologists, and decide to use Hollywood concepts of psychology.

If I recall, PM even flat denies the existence of an unconscious mind.

He's correct. There is no unconscious "mind". There are unconscious processes, but they don't have a hidden, sinister agenda. Hummm... I see a trend, here.

In metaphorical terms, some of you guys have had your head's rammed so deep inside a pipe for so long that you think that that's reality.

Do I need to point out how ironic that statement is ?

As Socrates pointed out aeons ago, the source of wisdom lies in the awareness that actually you know nothing.

That sounds like an amazing way to support your arguments from ignorance, which is all you've been doing, so far.

Socrates died thousands of years ago. Philosophy has evolved since then, you know.

Objectivity proceeds from an unexamined premise. There's no direct evidence to substantiate the subject-object divide.

And now you fancy yourself a philosopher. We've been through this with many of your ilk, Nick. Solipsism is useless. Let's not go there.

It's highly objective and widely used. The cops do it all the time, for example. Scientists do it. They call it seeking to validate a hypothesis.

The difference is that they look for evidence to substantiate their theories, and try to examine it rationally and objectively. You don't even have any evidence to examine.

Again, you're just demonstrating ignorance of scientific and philosophical method.

I hope you're not telling me that, in the absense of evidence, we should assume our theory correct.

The "incompetence" option I struggle with personally. Regarding 911 I don't have a problem with the NIST report. I'm pretty suspicious about who gave the hijackers their info, but it certainly could be that the OT is largely correct.

Their info about what ?

PM wrote it and you quoted it. I thought maybe you'd like to try and uphold it. Clearly not!

You made it seem like _I_ was the one who had said it.

 

[Nick227]

And now you fancy yourself a philosopher. We've been through this with many of your ilk, Nick. Solipsism is useless. Let's not go there.

Belz,

It has nothing to do with solipsism. It has nothing to do with the absolute nature of the self, or reality. It is a question of applying empiric method to the principle on which objectivity is founded - the subject-object divide. You cannot demonstrate its validity. Objectivity is an artificial mental construct. It is a culturally learned social phenomena. Socrates said the same thing thousands of years ago but today's scientists, and philosophers, are largely unaware of it. They have been so conditioned through the culture they were born into they can no longer grasp what he understood. It makes no sense to them, so deep is their assumption and so little their desire for truth. Science has moved on for sure, and created lots of exciting things. (Philosophy probably not so much!) It's great but if, finally, you're not aware of just where objectivity succeeds and fails, then you really miss a lot!

To believe in the absolute validity of objectivity is to metaphorically have your head shoved down a pipe. After a while most choose to make the best of pipe-dwelling and play the great game of objectivity. They end up castigating anyone who wants to set them free, as is noted of Socrates, below. Of course, in any moment you have the option to examine your core preconceptions and let yourself out of the fortress you have helped create.

"And very often, while arguing and discussing points that arose, he was treated with great violence and beaten, and pulled about, and laughed at and ridiculed by the multitude. But he bore all this with great equanimity. So that once, when he had been kicked and buffeted about, and had borne it all patiently, and some one expressed his surprise, he said, "Suppose an ass had kicked me would you have had me bring an action against him?" - Diogenes Laertius, Life of Socrates

The difference is that they look for evidence to substantiate their theories, and try to examine it rationally and objectively. You don't even have any evidence to examine.

I'm examining evidence from many African and Latin-American nations. They largely do show, I submit, a similar pattern of manipulation and coertion. What would you consider evidence here? Give me some ideas.

You made it seem like _I_ was the one who had said it.

Well, I apologise if you feel misrepresented. I knew you hadn't said it and it wasn't my intention to made it seem that you had.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

Then would you mind presenting them ?

I have been presenting them, rather regularly I might add....are you not reading the posts?

And learn to use the quote function properly. How am I supposed to know you were replying to me ?

By remembering what you wrote.

That does not answer my question. HOW does it help maintain it ?

I explained this too...I am sorry if you do not grasp how increasing an individuals ability to choose freely would help maintain a a level of equality.

If you are asking me again how deprioritizing pure profit for the sake of guaranteeing certain basic human rights would help maintain equality then the answer should be obvious.

 

[Belz...]

- the subject-object divide. You cannot demonstrate its validity. Objectivity is an artificial mental construct.

No, it's not. There are very good methods used to distinguish subjective from objective.

How you can think that what you're saying has nothing to do with solipsism is beyond me.

Socrates said the same thing thousands of years ago but today's scientists, and philosophers, are largely unaware of it.

They're not unaware of it. I think they know it's bull.

They have been so conditioned through the culture they were born into they can no longer grasp what he understood.

I think you're suffering from the "old is good" syndrome.

It makes no sense to them, so deep is their assumption and so little their desire for truth. Science has moved on for sure, and created lots of exciting things. (Philosophy probably not so much!) It's great but if, finally, you're not aware of just where objectivity succeeds and fails, then you really miss a lot!

Objectivity succeeds when we know things that apply to all. Consistency is the thing that's important. Show me a dream, delusion or hallucination that has anywhere near that level of consistency and you win something.

I'm examining evidence from many African and Latin-American nations. They largely do show, I submit, a similar pattern of manipulation and coertion. What would you consider evidence here? Give me some ideas.

Well, for starters, speculation is not evidence.

Well, I apologise if you feel misrepresented. I knew you hadn't said it and it wasn't my intention to made it seem that you had.

No need to apologist. It's not as if I lost an arm over this.

 

[Belz...]

By remembering what you wrote.

So, basically what you're saying is that I have to read through every post you make because it might be an answer to my points although there's no indication that it is ?

I explained this too...

No, you haven't. I asked you how it helped maintain equality and all you've done is claim that it does. I have no doubt. Just explain how.

I am sorry if you do not grasp how increasing an individuals ability to choose freely would help maintain a a level of equality.

That's nice.

If you are asking me again how deprioritizing pure profit for the sake of guaranteeing certain basic human rights would help maintain equality then the answer should be obvious.

"Pure" profit ? If something's rare, and you want it, you're willing to pay more than the thing's worth because you want it. And if the thing's very important to you, you might be willing to pay even more. And even more so if it's crucial. How can you eliminate that kind of situation ? Or do you think that a situation like that doesn't create equality issues ?

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm examining evidence from many African and Latin-American nations. They largely do show, I submit, a similar pattern of manipulation and coertion. What would you consider evidence here? Give me some ideas.

This is all true, there is a similar pattern of manipulation...if thats what it is, some here might use the term rational self interest or some other randian quip to identify the whats going on, perhaps to minimize the influence and intent of those involved. The fact remains that the financiers of the world do meet behind closed doors, and do not divulge all their intentions. The decisions made "behind closed doors" from the very top do effect nearly every person around the world to varying degree's.

The evidence is out in the open, it merely boils down to how one chooses to interpret the information. Objectivity won't decide so easily what is going on at the intent level of the WB and IMF because no one really knows. They stand behind the stated intent of developing the 3rd world when obviously they are not doing so...all the evidence suggests is that they have done some predatory lending and engaged in mismanagement and both of these things have cemented further earnings for them at the expense of the individuals involved in the 3rd world being able to have a hand in deciding their ultimate fate.

I would say in light of what is already plainly known by anyone reading up on the subjects, Nick has a much better case, if I understand him right. That case being essentially that money lenders work together to capitalize on the prospects of development in the 3rd world, and have taken actions that only increase more foreign debt while lining the their pockets ever more, and that this isn't just a accidental consequence but a planned one...if you want to argue evidence...this is what the evidence suggests...plain and simple. The WB/IMF is a synarchy of people who seek to gain and have done so by disadvantaging the ones they profess to help.

 

[Nick227]

No, it's not. There are very good methods used to distinguish subjective from objective.

How you can think that what you're saying has nothing to do with solipsism is beyond me.

Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind at this moment have possession? Can you demonstrate that you have a personal identity? Can you demonstrate the presence of a finite observer? None of these things, I submit, are demonstrable. The belief that they are innately true or self-evident is based on assumption. It is untested. Without these assumptions objectivity is not possible.

This is not solipsism. It affects nothing that exists, merely identifies that which is an a priori sensory phenomena from that which is a construct created by the mind.

Reality is non-dual. There is no subject-object divide. The notion of personal identity is a construct learned by the mind, through it developing sufficiently to conceive of personal selfhood and through it being immersed in an environment of cultural conditioning that reinforces this.

This is what Socrates appreciated. He understood that all phenomena are simply happening, and that it is merely the mind's capacity to conceive of "itself" as a limited entity that allows the seeming solidity of objectivity to manifest. It frustrated him that so many of his contemporaries were incapable of appreciating this and so he created what we now call "socratic method" to try to reveal to them the error of their belief in a solid objective reality. For his efforts he was frequently attacked. I know how he felt!

When you can appreciate the quite literally earth-shattering significance of this, you can begin to appreciate why so much energy was poured into metaphysics in days gone by. Thinkers already knew what today's scientists and thinkers have forgotten - that objectivity is itself merely a subjective phenomena. Nothing wrong with it, but that is all it is.

Objectivity succeeds when we know things that apply to all. Consistency is the thing that's important. Show me a dream, delusion or hallucination that has anywhere near that level of consistency and you win something.

The dream of personal identity. What do I get?

Well, for starters, speculation is not evidence.

What then is evidence?

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

BELZ!!!!!!!!!

So, basically what you're saying is that I have to read through every post you make because it might be an answer to my points although there's no indication that it is ?

If your following the thread, why not read every post?

No, you haven't. I asked you how it helped maintain equality and all you've done is claim that it does. I have no doubt. Just explain how.

What type of explaination do you want? You need to be more specific...the answer as you admit is obvious. How much detail do you need to feel satisfied?

That's nice.

Or sad...you tell me...?

"Pure" profit ? If something's rare, and you want it, you're willing to pay more than the thing's worth because you want it. And if the thing's very important to you, you might be willing to pay even more. And even more so if it's crucial. How can you eliminate that kind of situation ? Or do you think that a situation like that doesn't create equality issues ?

I think that the situation that you are describing has very little to do with what we are talking about, unless you have some understanding of the situation that I don't. What we are discussing is the systematic fleecing of the third world, multiple indigenous populations, and the average working citizen. Not to mention the reduction in overall economic opportunity, agency, and general access to programs that foster healthcare and education by forcing the indebted nations to reorganize their infrastructure to meet the demands of the lenders who are seemingly only concerned with making the money loaned back, plus the outrageous amount of interest tacked on. Would you take a loan that demanded you pay 13 dollars for every 1 dollar borrowed, coupled with the loss of your most basic social programs, rerouting the money from them into the lenders pocket?

The situation you described is the standard supply and demand concept...I fail to see how such a simple interaction can interfer with equality of the kind we are talking, which isn't to make all people equal monetarily but to create an environment were the market is fair and efficient...not just efficient to those who possess the most capital, and have the most say over where it goes...