Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

I gave up when Nick started admitting that his beliefs were founded on next to no evidence.

It's impossible to argue rationally with someone who freely admits that they irrationally believe something without anything credible to support their belief system.

Hi 8den,

I imagine that you're referring to my statement that I believe the CIA have used monies accrued from their involvement in the heroin trade to fund covert ops.

I agree that I don't have hard evidence to support this statement. However, I think the following could be taken into consideration. They have been found guilty of using money from the cocaine trade and weapons trade to fund covert ops against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, see the well-documented Iran-Contra scandal of the mid 80s. They have been accused of being implicated in the heroin trade on several occasions, most notably in Prof McCoy's book, The Politics of Heroin in SE Asia, which I read years back, and which I believe has now been republished with the added subtitle "CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade." I haven't read the new edition, btw, though, from the changes to the title, I rather doubt that it exonerates the Agency.

Given that my original accusation towards the CIA was actually just an aside, I do feel that this (if this is what you're referring to) is a rather feeble means to refute my claim that the World Bank and IMF have been covertly pursuing a globalist agenda for decades. To be honest, if this is your case, I think it has a lot more to do with keeping disturbing ideas out of your awareness than trying to objectively validate or refute any proposal. Of course, if this is not your case then I apologise and will happily try and debate what you are referring to.

Nick

 

[8den]

Hi 8den,

I imagine that you're referring to my statement that I believe the CIA have used monies accrued from their involvement in the heroin trade to fund covert ops.

Yes.

Also;

Your claim that governments "hate ecstasy and love heroin"

Your claim that the media is "centrally controlled"

Your claim that the IMF and World Bank are intentionally out to ruin the third world.

I agree that I don't have hard evidence to support this statement. However, I think the following could be taken into consideration. They have been found guilty of using money from the cocaine trade and weapons trade to fund covert ops against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua,

Found guilty where, and by whom?

see the well-documented Iran-Contra scandal of the mid 80s.

I think you need to re-read and educate yourself on the history of that event.

Considering how woefully inaccurate your remembrance of the reporting in newspapers in the run up to the Iraq war was.

Or did you manage to find one of those "waha we're going to war" headlines?" Y'know the ones you claim were predominate in the media?

They have been accused of being implicated in the heroin trade on several occasions, most notably in Prof McCoy's book, The Politics of Heroin in SE Asia, which I read years back, and which I believe has now been republished with the added subtitle "CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade." I haven't read the new edition, btw, though, from the changes to the title, I rather doubt that it exonerates the Agency.

Again Nick I've quoted the book it says nothing to support your claim that;

"The CIA fund black OPs using money from the heroin industry."

Nick you have a worldview that suggests a sinister agenda is at play in the world. When challenged to present evidence of this, you wave in the direction of events you misremembered and misunderstand.

Given that my original accusation towards the CIA was actually just an aside, I do feel that this (if this is what you're referring to) is a rather feeble means to refute my unsubstantiated claim that the World Bank and IMF have been covertly pursuing a globalist agenda for decades.

Fixed that for you.

To be honest, if this is your case, I think it has a lot more to do with keeping disturbing ideas out of your awareness than trying to objectively validate or refute any proposal. Of course, if this is not your case then I apologise and will happily try and debate what you are referring to.

Nick

Nick you've a worldview and an opinion on the manner in which the
socio-economic relationship between nations is managed. You've offered nothing of substance to support your claims and have been reduced to abstract sophistic to maintain the semblance of a point.

 

[Nick227]

Yeah, sure. Okay, let's say we can't. You DO know what the term "objective" is used for, right ?

Unless you're going to argue that, somehow, that lack of distinction prevents us from doing empirical research, then your line of argument is useless.

Hi Belz,

For sure, it doesn't prevent us from carrying out experiments. However it does place a fundamentally different tack on how we look at the world in the first place.

Okay, that's clearer. I would be inclined to agree, if I understand you correctly, but I don't see how this relate to what I said when this conversation started.

What I'm saying is that many people mistake objectivity for truth. They do not realise that objectivity is a learned cultural construct.

In most discussions this is not relevant because the subject matter of the discussion clearly is objectively understood anyway. However, if you're discussing how secret societies could run the world then it becomes suddenly a great deal more relevant. This is because you need to assess just what someone who has studied subjective sciences, the esoteric arts, could achieve. If you believe that objectivity is truth, you will not be able to assess this. Your mind will simply repeat "prove it, prove it" and go nowhere. If you are familiar with objective research and aware that it is not truth you are in a better position.

Neither do I. It's a lot of useless rambling about things that are supposed to be "deep" and smart, but mostly ends up being nonsensical. The purpose of most people who do "philosophy" is to pat themselves on the back when they see other people either nod politely or blankly gaze at them when they utter their "theories".

Yes, people who spend time trying to work out how reality is need to get out more. imo of course. For sure, there are other branches of philosophy, divinity, morals and ethics, etc.

Real philosophy ? It's called science, now.

Not by me, it ain't. Have you actually worked in science, btw? I have, though it was a few years ago now.

What I like about science is that it's mostly practical. You get things and it feels good.

I disagree with Socrates, then. Our assumption might not be 100% certain, but it's a whole lot more reasonable, and useful, than the only other alternative.

I submit that you are still not understanding Socrates' point. Because objectivity is learned, not a priori, finally the understandings accrued from it only represent knowledge from one mindset, from one set of basic assumptions.

Are you sure ?

Well, I did chemistry at HNC. Failed actually! But I'm sure I recall that oxygen will react with some metals, the ones in the first column of the periodic table or something. It was a long time ago!

Did I mention it ALWAYS turns out true ? How is that NOT substantiated ?

Objectivity proceeds from assumptions. It may give great data but it can make no statement deeper than the primary assumption on which it is based.

Now we ARE getting into solipsism. Now you're the one throwing random "doubts" about, for no reason.

Not really so. You were referring to your imagination. In the same way that you have no way to substantiate that the thoughts are yours, you have no way to substantiate that the imagination is yours. It's about possession. Solipsism also proceeds from assumptions.

Then please explain consistency. Please.

Objectivity just looks at the world in a certain way, from a certain set of prior assumptions. The knowledge you accrue in this manner is meaningful only within the same set of assumptions. It can be as consistent as you like. It doesn't mean anything except within the same mindset.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

For sure, it doesn't prevent us from carrying out experiments. However it does place a fundamentally different tack on how we look at the world in the first place.

No it doesn't, because just like solipsism, it doesn't make any difference, whatsoever. So why waste any time and energy on it ?

In most discussions this is not relevant because the subject matter of the discussion clearly is objectively understood anyway. However, if you're discussing how secret societies could run the world then it becomes suddenly a great deal more relevant. This is because you need to assess just what someone who has studied subjective sciences, the esoteric arts, could achieve. If you believe that objectivity is truth, you will not be able to assess this. Your mind will simply repeat "prove it, prove it" and go nowhere. If you are familiar with objective research and aware that it is not truth you are in a better position.

Okay, help me, here. What are you saying, now ? That someone who's stufied these "subjective sciences" and "esoteric arts" can do things that leaves no evidence, whatsoever ? what the hell are you saying ?

Not by me, it ain't. Have you actually worked in science, btw? I have, though it was a few years ago now.

What I like about science is that it's mostly practical. You get things and it feels good.

Yeah, just like philosophy. Only better. It actually does stuff.

I submit that you are still not understanding Socrates' point. Because objectivity is learned, not a priori, finally the understandings accrued from it only represent knowledge from one mindset, from one set of basic assumptions.

I said I disagreed with him. And you.

Objectivity proceeds from assumptions.

The assumption that it shouldn't be consistent if it weren't true ?

Not really so. You were referring to your imagination. In the same way that you have no way to substantiate that the thoughts are yours, you have no way to substantiate that the imagination is yours. It's about possession. Solipsism also proceeds from assumptions.

Yeah. Stupid assumptions.

I think you're in way over your head.

 

[Nick227]

Your claim that governments "hate ecstasy and love heroin"

Your claim that the media is "centrally controlled"

Your claim that the IMF and World Bank are intentionally out to ruin the third world.

Hi 8den,

What I actually said was that there was a pattern of activity consistent with centralised control, that there are other explanations, but that I believe this one should be examined.

Personally, I would not give a damn about synarchy were the stakes not so high. Because if there is a covert group increasingly creating a global superstate under their centralised control then this to me clearly is a very big deal.

Your whole approach to me seems to simply be saying that you refuse to examine a possibility unless there is compelling evidence to do so. Fair enough. That's your stand. It's not mine. I am more pro-active. I want to be as clear as I can be as to whether Synarchy could exist. I'm not bothered with keeping scary thoughts out of my head.

Regarding the WB and IMF, I did not say that it was out to ruin the 3rd World. I said that it was pursuing a covert globalist agenda. I have stated my case on several occasions on this thread. It's clear that there are other possibilities but the pattern of activity I submit does very closely resemble that of a controlling body with a hidden globalising agenda.

Regarding the media - I admit that I was misinformed in my original approach to this. The case is not particularly proven, and I don't know.

Regarding drugs - there's plenty imo to be worried about. Potential near-cures for addiction lie unused by governments and media who daily bleat on about the harm drugs do. I maintain that governmental drugs policies are definitely not clear and there is something pretty fishy about them. Media and Pharm likewise. There are hidden agendas.

Where we seem to me to differ is that you appear only concerned with not believing that Synarchy might exist. You want hard evidence before you will consider going there. Fair enough. But I am not like this. I want to know the truth and if there's a reasonable possibility our world is heading into some hellhole future then I will investigate it until I'm clear what I believe.

Found guilty where, and by whom?

I think you need to re-read and educate yourself on the history of that event.

Considering how woefully inaccurate your remembrance of the reporting in newspapers in the run up to the Iraq war was.

Or did you manage to find one of those "waha we're going to war" headlines?" Y'know the ones you claim were predominate in the media?

Again Nick I've quoted the book it says nothing to support your claim that;

"The CIA fund black OPs using money from the heroin industry."

I will read more. Thanks

Nick you have a worldview that suggests a sinister agenda is at play in the world. When challenged to present evidence of this, you wave in the direction of events you misremembered and misunderstand.

Some have been misremembered, yes. A lot not. You yourself considered at one point that the WB and IMF had been acting in an exploitative manner, reminiscent of colonialism. This is only one step from Synarchy.

Nick you've a worldview and an opinion on the manner in which the
socio-economic relationship between nations is managed. You've offered nothing of substance to support your claims and have been reduced to abstract sophistic to maintain the semblance of a point.

I bring up the point about objectivity proceeding from assumptions because it has direct bearing when considering the possibility of secret societies trying to run the world.

As point of fact, objectivity is the abstract sophistic.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No it doesn't, because just like solipsism, it doesn't make any difference, whatsoever. So why waste any time and energy on it ?

Hi Belz,

Because science cannot study the inner world of ideation and identification. The assumptions that the objective mindset proceed from deny it passage here. When considering whether some Illuminati-like group could be managing world affairs from an "inner planes" level, science is a relatively useless tool with which to assess whether this could be true or not.

Because objectivity is merely a construct, if someone believes it is truth, their mind is inevitably highly insecure. People learn to cover up this insecurity by hardening their perspective. They demand objectivity because they don't want to deal with all the insecurity that inevitably accrues from believing something to be real which actually is not real.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

I don't know how many points you think you scored, there, but you're the only one playing.

Um..ok...whatever...don't engage in a meaningful way then.

And yet standard of living are rising...

Where? I have already posted figures in this thread that contradict this claim.

Wouldn't that be "political" power ? We're talking about economic power, here. But let's assume I'll concede this...

Do you not think the two are intertwined here? I would say so quite a bit.

Actually, the more money you've got, the more time you can spend thinking about the environment. Who cares about the trees when you need to tear them down to feed your family ?

Because trees are what I meant when I said environment. Having more money in no way implies that you will spend it on conservation and cultivation of the environment...since obviously we don't...nor does anyone else really....it wouldn't be cost effective.

Oh, you're scratching at something, sure.

ok.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

You said it all boiled down to people wanting what others have didn't you, and that thats how they get economic power...I would say it has everything to do with what you said.

No, YOUR suggestions seem to work only in communist regimes, and we all saw what that does.

Really? I wouldn't say anything really worked in communist regimes....not even communism, since they weren't actual communist states, but merely used the ideology to form a dictatorship. There has never been a true communist society any where ever really. Quit being so black or white about it...just because you can't concieve of something doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

That's an extreme in and of itself, though. We can it utopia.

Hardly. Thinking that we might be able to have more than a two party system that is compromised by special interests is a utopia? Man my standards are low then. No one here is even remotely describing a utopia.

And this, we can idealism.

So how do we can your two dimensional thinking on this topic?

 

[Belz...]

Because science cannot study the inner world of ideation and identification.

Of course it can.

The assumptions that the objective mindset proceed from deny it passage here.

Not sure what this means, but it sounds like philosophical nonsense.

When considering whether some Illuminati-like group could be managing world affairs from an "inner planes" level, science is a relatively useless tool with which to assess whether this could be true or not.

Okay... that's Stundied.

You're woo, all over. I knew you'd end up with something like this.

Because objectivity is merely a construct, if someone believes it is truth, their mind is inevitably highly insecure. People learn to cover up this insecurity by hardening their perspective. They demand objectivity because they don't want to deal with all the insecurity that inevitably accrues from believing something to be real which actually is not real.

How can you demand anything else than objectivity ? How can you demand subjectivity ? This makes no sense, whatsoever.

I do agree, however, that people harden their opinions in response to contrary evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Um..ok...whatever...don't engage in a meaningful way then.

So your point game is meaningful ?

Where? I have already posted figures in this thread that contradict this claim.

Fair enough.

Do you not think the two are intertwined here? I would say so quite a bit.

At the risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, isn't everything entwined ?

Because trees are what I meant when I said environment. Having more money in no way implies that you will spend it on conservation and cultivation of the environment...since obviously we don't...nor does anyone else really....it wouldn't be cost effective.

Actually we spend more on the environment than before, and it's a fact that people who have to fight to stay alive don't really focus on that. It's unfortunate, but environmentalism is a luxury.

Really? I wouldn't say anything really worked in communist regimes....not even communism

since they weren't actual communist states, but merely used the ideology to form a dictatorship.

Yes, that is precisely what I meant.

There has never been a true communist society any where ever really. Quit being so black or white about it

I'm not being black and white about anything. You've mentionned a scenario, refused to explain how it helps anything, and now you don't like its implications.

...just because you can't concieve of something doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

True. Just because YOU can conceive of something doesn't mean it would, which is why I asked you to explain how it would help with equality without hurting everyone in the process, which is what communist states do (real communist states, not theoretical ones).

Hardly. Thinking that we might be able to have more than a two party system that is compromised by special interests is a utopia?

Who's this "we" you're talking about ? Stop being so USA-centric. I'm Canadian. We have way more than two parties. Not that it works any better, mind you.

So how do we can your two dimensional thinking on this topic?

"How do we can" ? I'm sure that was a typo. Could you clarify ?

 

[thesyntaxera]

So your point game is meaningful ?

Your the one bringing competition and "games" into this...if that is how you view things..so be it.

At the risk of invoking a slippery slope fallacy, isn't everything entwined ?

So don't risk it, because not everything is entwined...politics and economic obviously are...leave it at that.

Actually we spend more on the environment than before, and it's a fact that people who have to fight to stay alive don't really focus on that. It's unfortunate, but environmentalism is a luxury.

Oh thats a plus...it's still ages behind what it should be. And why is it they are fighting to stay alive again?

I'm not being black and white about anything. You've mentionned a scenario, refused to explain how it helps anything, and now you don't like its implications.

You have a tendency in this thread to think in polar opposites as demonstrated by your Q and A here. You should know how what I have explained would help people...it's the basics of what any human really wants, and there is absolutely no way it couldn't be beneficial. As I have said several times though, I am no theorist, and there are whole areas of study devoted to examining the process of development, so whatever I might tell you means little compared to what someone much more informed could tell you. Perhaps you should write to a department head in the field of human geography and ask them these questions.

True. Just because YOU can conceive of something doesn't mean it would, which is why I asked you to explain how it would help with equality without hurting everyone in the process, which is what communist states do (real communist states, not theoretical ones).

Define hurt? How would it hurt someone to provide basic human rights to all people?

Who's this "we" you're talking about ? Stop being so USA-centric. I'm Canadian. We have way more than two parties. Not that it works any better, mind you.

I am american, I have that perspective because I am from here, I write from that perspective because it's what I am most familiar with...deal with it.

"How do we can" ? I'm sure that was a typo. Could you clarify ?

No thats correct. You said:

We can it utopia.

...we can idealism.

So who's this "we" you speak of here? Stop being so "We" centric...

 

[Belz...]

Your the one bringing competition and "games" into this...

I'm the one who mentioned it, yes.

So don't risk it, because not everything is entwined...politics and economic obviously are...leave it at that.

Not everything is entwined ? That's new.

Sure, they're entwined, but you're talking about politics and claiming to talk about economics. Degrees of separation, and all that.

Oh thats a plus...it's still ages behind what it should be. And why is it they are fighting to stay alive again?

Err... because they're piss-poor ?

You have a tendency in this thread to think in polar opposites as demonstrated by your Q and A here.

That's because your reading comprehension is not very good. In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. I don't believe in black and white and polar opposites and absolutes.

You should know how what I have explained would help people...it's the basics of what any human really wants, and there is absolutely no way it couldn't be beneficial.

Humour me.

Perhaps you should write to a department head in the field of human geography and ask them these questions.

Nice dodge. Why don't YOU answer the question if you know the answer ?

Define hurt? How would it hurt someone to provide basic human rights to all people?

That one's easy. If you give more stuff to people who had less and the sum total wealth remains the same, then everybody else has less. That's what I meant by "hurt".

I am american, I have that perspective because I am from here, I write from that perspective because it's what I am most familiar with...deal with it.

You said "we", as in including me, and you used it to mean that I took that political system as a given, although I clearly don't because my country doesn't have that system.

And would you please skip the pedant remarks like "deal with it", as though it means something ? Thanks.

No thats correct.

You said "So how do we can your two dimensional thinking on this topic? " and that's what you wanted to say ? What does "how do we can your" mean ?

So who's this "we" you speak of here? Stop being so "We" centric...

"We" as in English speakers. Sheesh. Look up "utopia", if you don't know what it means.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm the one who mentioned it, yes.

So is it fair to say then that you are the one that views this as some sort of competition? You have mentioned it several times, and that coupled with the condescending attitude of your posts leads me to believe you think this is some sort of challenge for you that you are intent on "winning"...well good luck.

Not everything is entwined ? That's new.

I figured you might be aware of that simple idea given your desire to post on a forum such as this. But if you can prove that all things are indeed entwined then more power to you.

Sure, they're entwined, but you're talking about politics and claiming to talk about economics. Degrees of separation, and all that.

Well in the case of neoliberalism, which is actually what I was talking about, you can't talk about one without the other. I never really claimed to be speaking of anything except the causes and consequences of that type of model.

Err... because they're piss-poor ?

Why are they piss poor?

That's because your reading comprehension is not very good.

Yeah. Thats it......

In fact, the reality is quite the opposite. I don't believe in black and white and polar opposites and absolutes.

If that is true then quit blatantly making those comparisons in your arguments.

Humour me.

I have explained this already...many times. It is patently obvious. Why do you keep insisting upon me answering a question that has no specific context.......how does WHAT benefit them???? Could it be having freedom of choice? Having the ability to set their own prices, instead of being paid peanuts for their export goods? Having their basic human needs met, and safe guarding their rights against a corporatocracy that is bearing down on them because "it makes good business sense.." Define your question better.

Nice dodge. Why don't YOU answer the question if you know the answer ?

I never said I knew what they were. Thats why I refered you to those who are informed.

That one's easy. If you give more stuff to people who had less and the sum total wealth remains the same, then everybody else has less. That's what I meant by "hurt".

What do you define as wealth then? Everybody else already has less, because the wealth is already so concentrated in the hands of a shrewd few.

You said "we", as in including me, and you used it to mean that I took that political system as a given, although I clearly don't because my country doesn't have that system.

I get it. Your from Canada. No problem. I didn't realize that would impair your ability to comprehend the content of the message.

And would you please skip the pedant remarks like "deal with it", as though it means something ? Thanks.

And this is supposed to mean something I take it?

You said "So how do we can your two dimensional thinking on this topic? " and that's what you wanted to say ? What does "how do we can your" mean ?

What does:

We can it utopia.

...we can idealism.

mean?

"We" as in English speakers. Sheesh. Look up "utopia", if you don't know what it means.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[Nick227]

Of course it can.

Hi Belz,

I've yet to see a scientist attempt it. Can objectivity explain the experience of identification with thought and form? Please go for it. I'm intrigued.

Not sure what this means, but it sounds like philosophical nonsense.

It means that if you're trying to obtain data, you have to choose a process that can yeild it.

Objectivity cannot be used to meaningfully study selfhood because objectivity proceeds from the assumption of a limited self. This is why metaphysics arose, because some phenomena could not be studied objectively. What has happened is that people have learned to worship objectivity and reject subjectivity. A CTist might state that this is the Illuminati covering their tracks! By pushing hard, objective science and ridiculing subjective science you create the ideal cultural environment to exploit the living **** out of people. They will not easily twig because they have been programmed to laugh at anyone who forwards the possibility that this could happen!

Okay... that's Stundied.

Cool!

You're woo, all over. I knew you'd end up with something like this.

How can you demand anything else than objectivity ? How can you demand subjectivity ? This makes no sense, whatsoever.

Belz, man, I've been on this list two months. I swear half the people writing are actively terrified of conspiracy theories. Who the **** wouldn't be? It is a terrifying thought, the idea that some elitist group could be controlling the destiny of you and your kids. People harden to the suggestion. It's a totally normal reaction. You demand objectivity. You demand proof. Who the hell wouldn't? The degree of hardening reflects the degree of threat perceived, whether perceived consciously or not.

Trouble is, demanding objectivity only works if the evidence is in the objective realm.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

 

[Stout]

I don't think this is really a "winnable" debate at all considering what's under speculation is the mindsets of the rich and powerful.

The way i see it. governments responsibility, all governments, to ensure the well being and happiness of it's citizens. Not some corporation's.

Maybe I'm trying to give myself some sort of ethical get out of jail free card by taking this tack because, after all, I have to examine my own complicity with the actions of those corporations when I purchase their goods. Hey...I'm cheap, i price shop with only a very minimal consideration given to the actual lifestyles and working conditions of the people who made the goods I'm buying.

I know what my alternatives are, and as third world manufacturers take over the global marketplace, my choice between buying slave made goods, and union made European/North American goods quickly narrows to the choice between buying, or doing without.

I suppose I could get in a huff about corporate profits ( execs, employees, shareholders ) and somehow convince myself that they're evil because they're making profit and their profits are somehow more evil than the profits I make when I do business. But where does that put me when I invest in mutual funds? One of "them" right ?

I see the same sort of thing with concern for the environment too. On some other message board I use, quite often there's posts by "hippies" railing against the evil American SUV and how they should all be banned yada yada......Quite often made just before that same poster jumps on a plane for a few weeks vacation in Thailand. Usually my "hey, lets compare environmental footprints shall we? My V6 vs your 747", are met with either silence or some mumbo jumbo about how travelling makes me a better person.

Maybe I watch too much Southpark.

 

[volatile]

Trouble is, demanding objectivity only works if the evidence is in the objective realm.

Nick

I'm a philosophy and art history doctoral candidate, so you can't outskirt me with nonsense here, Nick.

If the NWO actually exists, then it exists objectively. To suggest otherwise suggests you understand neither objectivity nor subjectivity.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm a philosophy and art history doctoral candidate, so you can't outskirt me with nonsense here, Nick.

If the NWO actually exists, then it exists objectively. To suggest otherwise suggests you understand neither objectivity nor subjectivity.

Not to step on toes here, but the word used was Synarchy, and it is arguable that such a construct exists objectively, although it is still dependent on the observer to determine if it is malicious or not...ie the new world order, or a bunch of wealthy individuals moving capital around the globe in a quest for profit.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I don't think this is really a "winnable" debate at all considering what's under speculation is the mindsets of the rich and powerful.

The way i see it. governments responsibility, all governments, to ensure the well being and happiness of it's citizens. Not some corporation's.

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the corporation is actually given status as a individual just a like person, and thus given the ability to move freely in pursuit of it's self interest.

 

[Belz...]

So is it fair to say then that you are the one that views this as some sort of competition?

Wow. Don't ever try to psychanalyse someone again. Stick to other things.

You have mentioned it several times

Once, actually. You're making stuff up, now.

and that coupled with the condescending attitude of your posts leads me to believe you think this is some sort of challenge for you that you are intent on "winning"...well good luck.

That's a nice attempt at a tu quoque, but it won't work.

I figured you might be aware of that simple idea given your desire to post on a forum such as this. But if you can prove that all things are indeed entwined then more power to you.

Syntax, what I mean is that it's easy to say that two things are the related when someone points out that you're talking about one of them and not the other, which is exactly what you did.

Why are they piss poor?

That sounds like a derailing, to me.

My point was that environmentalism was a luxury.

If that is true then quit blatantly making those comparisons in your arguments.

May I know to which black-and-white comparison you're refering to ?

Could it be having freedom of choice? Having the ability to set their own prices, instead of being paid peanuts for their export goods? Having their basic human needs met, and safe guarding their rights against a corporatocracy that is bearing down on them because "it makes good business sense.." Define your question better.

None of what you mention eliminates inequality.

I never said I knew what they were. Thats why I refered you to those who are informed.

What do you define as wealth then? Everybody else already has less, because the wealth is already so concentrated in the hands of a shrewd few.

Syntax, you're contradicting yourself. Everybody <> a shrewd few.

I get it. Your from Canada. No problem. I didn't realize that would impair your ability to comprehend the content of the message.

Again, nice dodge. You talked about the US' two-party system and used "we" as a pronoun, because you thought that I believed that that system was the way to go. The fact that I don't HAVE this system proves you wrong.

And this is supposed to mean something I take it?

Lost on you, obviously.

What does:

mean?

Oops. Typos. "Call" was the word. Now what was yours ?

What does that have to do with what I said?

I think you're forgetting the discussion as it goes.

 

[Belz...]

I've yet to see a scientist attempt it. Can objectivity explain the experience of identification with thought and form? Please go for it. I'm intrigued.

It's difficult to attempt to explain something that's nonsensical.

Objectivity cannot be used to meaningfully study selfhood because objectivity proceeds from the assumption of a limited self.

That's what I said. Philosophical nonsense.

You're creating concepts that probably don't exist and using them to support your own conclusions.

What has happened is that people have learned to worship objectivity and reject subjectivity. A CTist might state that this is the Illuminati covering their tracks!

What ? How ? Those "illuminati", you speak of, how can they do anything without doing it in the real world, the objective world ? And if they do, then what they do potentially leaves evidence that we CAN study objectively.

By pushing hard, objective science and ridiculing subjective science you create the ideal cultural environment to exploit the living **** out of people.

Again, please explain how that works.

Belz, man, I've been on this list two months. I swear half the people writing are actively terrified of conspiracy theories.

I find them quite amusing, myself. Especially the Beatles one.

It is a terrifying thought, the idea that some elitist group could be controlling the destiny of you and your kids.

Well, it's not reassuring, but it's also impossible.

People harden to the suggestion. It's a totally normal reaction.

Are you a psychologist, Nick ? Because I expect you to be in way over your head, here.

ou demand objectivity. You demand proof. Who the hell wouldn't?

Yeah, because we started making progress when we started demanding proof.

The degree of hardening reflects the degree of threat perceived, whether perceived consciously or not.

Another undetectable ? That's very convenient.

Trouble is, demanding objectivity only works if the evidence is in the objective realm.

If I punch someone in the guts, it doesn't matter if the subjective is real or not. There's objective proof that I DID punch that person.

I really don't get what you're saying.

I suspect you don't, either.