Former conspiracy believer here

[Belz...]

Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind at this moment have possession?

Whadda huh ?

Can you demonstrate that you have a personal identity?

That sounds remarkably like a nonsensical question. What do you mean by "personal identity" ?

Can you demonstrate the presence of a finite observer?

None of these things, I submit, are demonstrable.

Nothing is demonstratable when you demand 100% certainty.

The belief that they are innately true or self-evident is based on assumption.

You say these words. Belief. Innately true. Self-evident. Nobody said they were either a belief, or self-evident. They are evident, but not through faith alone.

It is untested. Without these assumptions objectivity is not possible.

True, but it's a very reasonable set of assumptions, because not only is the alternative nonsensical, it's also useless.

Reality is non-dual. There is no subject-object divide.

That's because there is no subject, per se.

This is what Socrates appreciated.

Would you please move forward into the 21st century ?

When you can appreciate the quite literally earth-shattering significance of this

I see nothing earth-shattering aboutn it. Perhaps if you'd learned these things earlier on, they might seem more natural to you.

Thinkers already knew what today's scientists and thinkers have forgotten - that objectivity is itself merely a subjective phenomena.

Now you're going to tell me that Aztec mathematicians knew more than today's ?

The dream of personal identity. What do I get?

Nothing. It is far from being consistent.

This is the difference between two-cent, cheap armchair philosophy and the real stuff. Once you think of something, it's important to realise what it means, not what it says.

 

[Belz...]

BELZ!!!!!!!!!

SYNTAX!!!!!

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

Because you're probably engaged in other derailing conversations with other posters and I'm not interested in your answers to them.

I don't have to read every post. I'm talking to YOU.

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?

More than zero would be a good start.

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

I can't. It seemed to spawn out of your imagination. I don't give a hoot, one way or another.

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.

We were also talking about the fact that trade, by its very nature, created imbalance of wealth. Or did you miss that part ?

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

Because there are always people ready to ask you an insane price for something you desperatly want.

 

[thesyntaxera]

More than zero would be a good start.

Define zero then...because I have pretty thoroughly unraveled the main points in question with my previous answers..some of which you admit you haven't read.

I can't. It seemed to spawn out of your imagination. I don't give a hoot, one way or another.

If those are your druthers then you can have them.

We were also talking about the fact that trade, by its very nature, created imbalance of wealth. Or did you miss that part ?

There has always been an imbalance of wealth, and probably always will be as long as humans are concerned with the acquisition of it. What we are discussing in particular is an imbalance of wealth that was created by people fixing the system in their favor(at least regarding the topics of neolib and the WB/IMF) and that is what I was attempting to elucidate.

Because there are always people ready to ask you an insane price for something you desperatly want.

We are talking about what people desperately need in the face of what people with ecomonic power want, and how one is being subdued by the other. What people need is a fair chance at making decisions for themselves without having them dictated to them by those with economic influence, and the ability to provide basic human services that you and I take for granted.

So please, get more specific with your queries if you want more specific answers.

 

[Nick227]

Whadda huh ?

It's just a question. Can you show any form of evidence, other than hearsay?

That sounds remarkably like a nonsensical question. What do you mean by "personal identity" ?

A sense that some things are you and some things aren't. We pretty much all have it, but can you demonstrate its validity?

Nothing is demonstratable when you demand 100% certainty.

I'm not demanding 100%. Any evidence whatsoever other than hearsay will do fine.

These three q's are all pretty much the same. They deal with the primary constructs the infant mind makes in forming an ego - a sense of limited selfhood. There is nothing to substantiate the validity of this construct. It is just a culturally learned notion, and from it all objectivity proceeds. No problems here, except that this constructed objectivity does not survive its own analysis!

I bring this up because I find it can help when discussing with people who have become heavily reliant on objectivity. They often do not realise that their worldview is entirely culturally learned, it has very little to do with a priori reality. It is simply an overlaid construct. Nothing wrong with objectivity, nothing wrong with the ego, but it's nice to remember that it's just a construct, not something real.

You say these words. Belief. Innately true. Self-evident. Nobody said they were either a belief, or self-evident. They are evident, but not through faith alone.

They are evident through what then?

True, but it's a very reasonable set of assumptions, because not only is the alternative nonsensical, it's also useless.

Belz,

You are stating that something which absolutely cannot be demonstrated to be real is still reasonable. Are you turning CT?!

That's because there is no subject, per se.

or no object

Would you please move forward into the 21st century ?

I'm giving Socrates as an example, so that there is the opportunity to begin to see just what could have been lost through this process of "moving forward."

I'm not saying that 2300 BC was some golden age, and we've gone backwards since then. It's just that, when you consider Socrates against today's scientists and thinkers, there is undoubtedbly a net gain in understanding of phenomena derived through objectivity, yet their is a net loss in actual awareness. The net gain in objectivity here is mirrored by a net loss in self-awareness.

I see nothing earth-shattering aboutn it.

That is simply because you haven't realised what it is yet.

Nothing. It is far from being consistent.

You are saying you don't have a consistent sense of identity?

This is the difference between two-cent, cheap armchair philosophy and the real stuff. Once you think of something, it's important to realise what it means, not what it says.

It is not so much to do with philosophy...the love of wisdom. Rather it is simply to invite the objective mindset to examine the core precepts on which objectivity itself is founded.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Define zero then...because I have pretty thoroughly unraveled the main points in question with my previous answers..some of which you admit you haven't read.

fine, then. Don't.

There has always been an imbalance of wealth, and probably always will be as long as humans are concerned with the acquisition of it.

Then what the hell are we arguing about ?

We are talking about what people desperately need in the face of what people with ecomonic power want

But economic power is just that. Having something that someone wants.

What people need is a fair chance at making decisions for themselves without having them dictated to them by those with economic influence, and the ability to provide basic human services that you and I take for granted.

But that is, by definition, impossible, unless we have communism.

 

[Belz...]

It's just a question. Can you show any form of evidence, other than hearsay?

Of what ?

A sense that some things are you and some things aren't. We pretty much all have it, but can you demonstrate its validity?

Actually, I don't think you've got it right. I don't "sense" like I'm separate from the enviroment. And I don't subscribe to philosophers' contention that we are sure of our own minds.

I'm not demanding 100%. Any evidence whatsoever other than hearsay will do fine.

Excellent, then. In that case I'll mention consistency, again. Something that is impossible in dreams, delusions or hallucinations.

These three q's are all pretty much the same. They deal with the primary constructs the infant mind makes in forming an ego - a sense of limited selfhood. There is nothing to substantiate the validity of this construct.

Not only that, it doesn't exist.

They are evident through what then?

... evidence, obviously. Consistent evidence, mind you.

You are stating that something which absolutely cannot be demonstrated to be real is still reasonable. Are you turning CT?!

"Woo" is the term you're looking for, and no, I'm not.

Nick, as I said, solipsism is nonsensical and useless. The alternative is to assume that the observed reality, especially in view of its consistency, exists and is independent of our thoughts. Objectivity stems from that, very reasonable, assumption.

or no object

Very, very unlikely.

I'm giving Socrates as an example, so that there is the opportunity to begin to see just what could have been lost through this process of "moving forward."

It's just that, when you consider Socrates against today's scientists and thinkers, there is undoubtedbly a net gain in understanding of phenomena derived through objectivity, yet their is a net loss in actual awareness.

How so ?

That is simply because you haven't realised what it is yet.

Actually, that's because most of the world has moved beyond it.

You are saying you don't have a consistent sense of identity?

Precisely. That's because what makes up me changes all the time due to various factors. As I said, the mind is far from being as reliable as armchair philosophers will make you believe.

 

[Nick227]

Of what ?

Hi Belz,

What I asked was....Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind are yours; that they have possession?

Actually, I don't think you've got it right. I don't "sense" like I'm separate from the enviroment. And I don't subscribe to philosophers' contention that we are sure of our own minds.

Belz,

If you don't experience any separation between yourself and your environment how can you even meaningfully use the terms? How do you know where one ends and the other begins? Is the keyboard you? Is the hand you? Is the thought trying to decide this you?

Not only that, it doesn't exist.

You're saying you don't experience a sense of personal identity?

"Woo" is the term you're looking for, and no, I'm not.

Nick, as I said, solipsism is nonsensical and useless. The alternative is to assume that the observed reality, especially in view of its consistency, exists and is independent of our thoughts. Objectivity stems from that, very reasonable, assumption.

Reasonable on what grounds?

What I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that objectivity fails when you attempt to validate it by its own methods. There is nothing objective about objectivity itself!

This has very little to do with solipsism.

Very, very unlikely.

Belz,

If there's no subject-object divide then anything could equally be labelled "subject" or "object."

How so ?

We have accrued knowledge through the careful application of our capacity for objective thought. However, the overwhelming majority of people doing this, are not aware that they are simply using a construct. They mistake the relationships revealed through objective observation for a priori reality. Compared to the philosopher-scientists of aeons ago, like for example, Aristotle, we know more in some ways, but are less self-aware.

Precisely. That's because what makes up me changes all the time due to various factors. As I said, the mind is far from being as reliable as armchair philosophers will make you believe.

Are you saying you have no idea who you are? I'm just trying to work out what you mean by your writing. Can you explain more?

Nick

 

[Belz...]

What I asked was....Can you demonstrate that the thoughts passing through the mind are yours; that they have possession?

Nope.

If you don't experience any separation between yourself and your environment how can you even meaningfully use the terms? How do you know where one ends and the other begins? Is the keyboard you? Is the hand you? Is the thought trying to decide this you?

More to the point: am I part of the environment ? Your argument goes both ways. But one is easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

You're saying you don't experience a sense of personal identity?

Not always to the point that some philosophers claim.

Reasonable on what grounds?

Consistency, remember ?

What I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that objectivity fails when you attempt to validate it by its own methods. There is nothing objective about objectivity itself!

That's ridiculous. Objectivity is an assumption. You said so yourself. It's a reasonable assumption, but it is by no means 100% certain.

This has very little to do with solipsism.

It has everything to do with it, IMO.

If there's no subject-object divide then anything could equally be labelled "subject" or "object."

Precisely.

Compared to the philosopher-scientists of aeons ago, like for example, Aristotle, we know more in some ways, but are less self-aware.

Somehow that doesn't answer my question.

Are you saying you have no idea who you are? I'm just trying to work out what you mean by your writing. Can you explain more?

I'm saying that I would never claim that my "mind" is a separate entity or something that's in any way, shape or form more certain than the environment around me because it seems to me just as uncertain by the very fact that it keeps changing. When I'm sleepy, for example, my consciousness not only seems very unreliable, but also less defined.

 

[Nick227]

More to the point: am I part of the environment ? Your argument goes both ways. But one is easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

My argument is that the "I" bit is an assumption. If you have nothing in your experience to ratify that there is any "I", then you have no concept of boundaries. There is nothing to suggest that anything, whether it be an object in your vicinity, a thought, or a feeling has any possession associated with it whatsoever. There is no concept of a world inside and one outside.

This state might be considered a "baseline" state for human consciousness, what Socrates considered the state of realising that one knew nothing. From this state, you'll be aware that there's nothing to suggest, for example, that you were ever born or will ever die.

Starting from this position, with the use of assumptions, you can create a limited sense of self, and thus the objective mindset. But there's nothing to suggest that any of this is in any real way significant. It's more just a bit of fun.

From this you can appreciate just how malleable people who get too much into objectivity become. Fuelled with a fervoured belief in the absolute validity of objectivity, people become like the native Americans who could not see the approaching ships of the Europeans. They can no longer see what is actually in front of their faces and can be led into denying pretty much anything.

That's ridiculous. Objectivity is an assumption. You said so yourself. It's a reasonable assumption, but it is by no means 100% certain.

Yes, objectivity is a construct based on assumptions. It also has the distinction of being a self-rebutting proposition! I wouldn't consider it reasonable, as there's nothing for any reasonableness to relate to. I'd say it's fun. Well, some of the time anyway. A good place to visit, perhaps, but you wouldn't wanna live there!

This is nothing to do with solipsism, btw. Check it out on wikipedia, if you don't believe me. Some philosophers call it non-duality. It is, however, highly relevant to conspiracy theories as, if you can appreciate just how little in reality you do know, then you can also appreciate just how little self-determination you may actually have. The gradual burgeoning awareness of this is very likely a factor in understanding why the phenomenon of the CT arises.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

My argument is that the "I" bit is an assumption.

And here I was, thinking that your argument was that "objectivity" was an assumption.

If you have nothing in your experience to ratify that there is any "I", then you have no concept of boundaries. There is nothing to suggest that anything, whether it be an object in your vicinity, a thought, or a feeling has any possession associated with it whatsoever.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you use the word "possession".

This state might be considered a "baseline" state for human consciousness, what Socrates considered the state of realising that one knew nothing.

I'm going to continue to assume that you haven't read any philosopher AFTER plato. Studying the Greeks is one thing, but you must be aware that philosophy has moved on, since then. You admitted so, yourself. Please, mention other philosophers.

And Socrates was wrong unless he meant that as a metaphor. Relative to what there is to know, we know practically nothing, individually. But we don't know zero, no matter what definition of "know" you use.

We know, for example, that there is something.

From this you can appreciate just how malleable people who get too much into objectivity become.

I'm not completely sure you understand what I meant by "objectivity". Quite simply, I meant that not everything is open to interpretation. Oxygen reacts with several substances -- iron, for example. That is not disputable.

Fuelled with a fervoured belief in the absolute validity of objectivity, people become like the native Americans who could not see the approaching ships of the Europeans. They can no longer see what is actually in front of their faces and can be led into denying pretty much anything.

That's a nice string of words, placed one after another. Is it supposed to mean something "deep" ?

Yes, objectivity is a construct based on assumptions.

It's based on a single assumption, and it always turns out true. It's a hell of a good guess, to me.

It also has the distinction of being a self-rebutting proposition! I wouldn't consider it reasonable, as there's nothing for any reasonableness to relate to.

Nick, if the universe was a result of, say, my imagination, there is every reason to believe, based on 100% of my other imagination experiences, that it would be inconsistent, variable, changing. Instead, it is 100% consistent, which is the exact opposite of what I'd expect.

So, unless you can challenge my assumption, based on 100% of my experiences and 100% of everybody else's experiences, that imagination is not consistent, and the assumption, based on 100% of my experiences and 100% of everybody else's experienes, that reality is always consistent, then objectivity is far from being an assumption. It's a fact.

This is nothing to do with solipsism, btw. Check it out on wikipedia, if you don't believe me. Some philosophers call it non-duality. It is, however, highly relevant to conspiracy theories as, if you can appreciate just how little in reality you do know, then you can also appreciate just how little self-determination you may actually have. The gradual burgeoning awareness of this is very likely a factor in understanding why the phenomenon of the CT arises.

That's an argument from ignorance, in disguise. The fact that I don't know something is not a liscence to believe in anything I wish.

 

[Belz...]

And why do I get the impression that no one else is reading this thread ?

 

[Stout]

Well..I'm here, trying to make sense of it. Belz..you I understand. Nick..I'm not so sure, no wait actually I'm totally confused by Nick...I think.

 

[Nick227]

And here I was, thinking that your argument was that "objectivity" was an assumption.

Hi Belz,

It's the same thing. In order to have objectivity you have to be able to distinguish between subject and object. Invariably this means "I" and something which is "not I." For example, in the sentence "I look at the table," "I" is the subject and "the table" is the object. So, the prerequisite for objectivity is a clear sense of personal boundaries.

What I am saying is that this "clear sense of personal boundary" does not stand up to objective scrutinisation itself. There is nothing in your immediate experience of being alive which indicates in any way that there is an "I", that there is a personal identity. There's hearsay, other people behaving in a manner consistent with them believing it also, but there's nothing concrete. The sense of personal selfhood, the notion of a personal "I," that we all experience is a learned construct.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you use the word "possession".

I mean the notion that things, be they articles, feelings, thoughts or whatever belong to anyone. There's no way to substantiate personal possession.

I'm going to continue to assume that you haven't read any philosopher AFTER plato. Studying the Greeks is one thing, but you must be aware that philosophy has moved on, since then. You admitted so, yourself. Please, mention other philosophers.

Oh God, you don't want to start in on Whitehead, do you? I hope not. All those obscure words. I'd be with my dictionary all day. I don't really like philosophy much. And, actually, this isn't so much to do with it. Philosophy usually seems to relate beliefs about the nature of reality. This isn't what I'm talking about. I'm simply saying....why not observe what happens when you point objective awareness back at its own core assumptions?

I'm really trying to avoid making statements about the nature of reality because it would be drifting off into philosophy, which would be a drag. Besides which, philosophy itself doesn't really survive the rebuttal of absolute objectivity much better than science.

And Socrates was wrong unless he meant that as a metaphor. Relative to what there is to know, we know practically nothing, individually. But we don't know zero, no matter what definition of "know" you use.

Socrates appreciated what I'm writing about above. He understood that the knowledge accrued through objective analysis is finally based solely on an unverifiable assumption.

I'm not completely sure you understand what I meant by "objectivity". Quite simply, I meant that not everything is open to interpretation. Oxygen reacts with several substances -- iron, for example. That is not disputable.

Objectivity means you can distinguish subject and object. It means you have a sense of detachment from the article being examined. Oxygen reacts with several substances, for sure.

That's a nice string of words, placed one after another. Is it supposed to mean something "deep" ?

It means that until you appreciate what Socrates appreciated you will be living with your head placed inside a pipe.

It's based on a single assumption, and it always turns out true. It's a hell of a good guess, to me.

It's based on an assumption which cannot be substantiated.

Nick, if the universe was a result of, say, my imagination, there is every reason to believe, based on 100% of my other imagination experiences, that it would be inconsistent, variable, changing. Instead, it is 100% consistent, which is the exact opposite of what I'd expect.

Well, possibly, but this has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with the issue about objectivity. How can you verify that the imagination is yours?

So, unless you can challenge my assumption, based on 100% of my experiences and 100% of everybody else's experiences, that imagination is not consistent, and the assumption, based on 100% of my experiences and 100% of everybody else's experienes, that reality is always consistent, then objectivity is far from being an assumption. It's a fact.

Now you are drifting off into solipsism. This has nothing to do with imagination. It's to do with possession.

Objectivity is a position we choose to take, just as having a personal identity is a position that is chosen. It cannot be substantiated. There's nothing wrong with objectivity, but it is simply a mindset, nothing more.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

And why do I get the impression that no one else is reading this thread ?

Hey Belz,

You're finally getting it! That's it, man. No one is reading the thread. Not even right now!

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

fine, then. Don't.

Don't what? Repeat myself? Thats fine by me, otherwise point out specifically what you like elaborated on.

Then what the hell are we arguing about?

You are the he one who appears to be arguing, I was attempting to debate....there is a slight difference. What I am discussing is that despite an inevitable margin of wealth between the haves and the have nots there has been in recent years a systematic favoring of one type of economic model nearly across the board in order to facilitate "globalization"...and the result of this has been a detriment to the working class across the globe, indigenous groups, and citizens of third world nations. The main effect could be summed up as a debasement of the basic human rights that this preferred model is supposed to ensure, as like most things the theory on paper is in high contrast to the theory in practice.

But economic power is just that. Having something that someone wants.

Is that all? I doubt it. Economic power has many meanings and uses. In the case of the WB, it uses predatory lending and special clauses such as structural adjustment..which entails the the dissolution of social programs, which I might add are already in short supply in the 3rd world, and the funneling of those funds back to the WB in order to make payments on a debt that they will never be able to pay off due to the enormous interests rates, and despite the the fact that other programs such as those run by the Grameen Bank fair much much better....and are much simpler.
http://www.grameen-info.org/bank/index.html --for more info on that.

It has usurped the environment across the globe, and left in it's wake a swath of destruction in the form of pollution of all types, particularly in countries where it is less regulated...and all of this environmental destruction is done in the name of the acquisition of profit without regard to those effected....

I am barely even scratching the surface here.

You should really read this book: "A brief history of neoliberalism" that I linked earlier...it is a systematic summation of the situation and is exhaustively researched and cited.

Do you really think people are allowing corporatism to take over the world because they want what the economic power brokers have? Or do they basically have no choice in the matter because all the options are controlled by corporate profit monkey's, their subsidiaries, lobbyists, and pocketed politicians who are on board with the plan.

But that is, by definition, impossible, unless we have communism.

How so? Please explain why it is either ridiculously free markets, or communism...this seems like extremism. What about a happy medium like Libertarian Socialism or any variety of alternate ism's that aren't so nearly black and white. What it boils down to is ethics...is it ethically sound to trample the rights of others for profit just because that is what is legally acceptable? What are the alternatives to being a greedy SOB? It is possible to make strides to protect the individual from corporatism and still maintain a relatively free trade scenario. What would the sacrifice of 1-5 percent of our defense budget do to help the situation? What would adding some protection to individuals economic/human rights as well as protecting the environment do to the economic powers that be? Probably cause their profits to drop by a percentage point or two the next year...think of it as competition...if they are creative business persons then they should be able to think of a way to maximize profit in that climate while still providing their near slave labor force of foreigners a living wage and reducing environmental damages that are the side effect of them making money...wow what a concept...

 

[JimBenArm]

And why do I get the impression that no one else is reading this thread ?

I'm reading it, just to see what esoteric nonsense that Nick and Syntax will try to pass off as actual thought. Too much time in the humanities and not enough in real science, obviously. I expect one or the other to ask what kind of tree you would be at any moment, and how you feel about it.
They obviously haven't a clue how absurd their arguments sound to others.

 

[Belz...]

It's the same thing. In order to have objectivity you have to be able to distinguish between subject and object.

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.

What I am saying is that this "clear sense of personal boundary" does not stand up to objective scrutinisation itself. There is nothing in your immediate experience of being alive which indicates in any way that there is an "I", that there is a personal identity.

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.

Oh God, you don't want to start in on Whitehead, do you? I hope not. All those obscure words. I'd be with my dictionary all day. I don't really like philosophy much.

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".

Real philosophy ? It's called science, now.

Socrates appreciated what I'm writing about above. He understood that the knowledge accrued through objective analysis is finally based solely on an unverifiable assumption.

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.

Objectivity means you can distinguish subject and object. It means you have a sense of detachment from the article being examined. Oxygen reacts with several substances, for sure.

Are you sure ?

It's based on an assumption which cannot be substantiated.

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

Well, possibly, but this has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with the issue about objectivity. How can you verify that the imagination is yours?

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

And, I think my point has everything to do with objectivity.

Objectivity is a position we choose to take, just as having a personal identity is a position that is chosen. It cannot be substantiated. There's nothing wrong with objectivity, but it is simply a mindset, nothing more.

Then please explain consistency. Please.

 

[Belz...]

You are the he one who appears to be arguing, I was attempting to debate....there is a slight difference.

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

What I am discussing is that despite an inevitable margin of wealth between the haves and the have nots there has been in recent years a systematic favoring of one type of economic model nearly across the board in order to facilitate "globalization"...and the result of this has been a detriment to the working class across the globe

And yet standard of living are rising...

Is that all? I doubt it. Economic power has many meanings and uses. In the case of the WB, it uses predatory lending and special clauses such as structural adjustment..which entails the the dissolution of social programs

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

It has usurped the environment across the globe, and left in it's wake a swath of destruction in the form of pollution of all types, particularly in countries where it is less regulated...and all of this environmental destruction is done in the name of the acquisition of profit without regard to those effected....

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 ?

I am barely even scratching the surface here.

Oh, you're scratching at something, sure.

Do you really think people are allowing corporatism to take over the world because they want what the economic power brokers have?

That has nothing to do with what I said.

How so? Please explain why it is either ridiculously free markets, or communism...this seems like extremism.

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

What about a happy medium like Libertarian Socialism or any variety of alternate ism's that aren't so nearly black and white.

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

...wow what a concept...

And this, we can idealism.

 

[8den]

And why do I get the impression that no one else is reading this thread ?

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.

 

[Nick227]

I'm reading it, just to see what esoteric nonsense that Nick and Syntax will try to pass off as actual thought. Too much time in the humanities and not enough in real science, obviously. I expect one or the other to ask what kind of tree you would be at any moment, and how you feel about it.
They obviously haven't a clue how absurd their arguments sound to others.

Hi Jim,

All I'm really saying is that if you've mistaken objectivity for truth you do run the risk of one day finding yourself in a world of ****!

Nick