Zeitgeist movie/documentry - Page 6

i never meant to say somalia shows anarchy can't work. Just that it was an anarchy and is extremely violent. In fact from what I've read there are many places and services in Somalia which have almost certainly benefited from anarchy.

Yes Somalia is "anarchy" in it's most narrow analytical sense, ie. an area in which there is no monopoly of violence and it happens to be a violent area.

That is trivial: no one disagrees and it's irrelevant for a discussion on anarchism as the anarchy found there has little to do with anarchism as an ideology.

Anarchy in a perfect world would work due to humans being taught via community education to respect each other and the eventual society of well educated humanitarians would no longer need a gov't as it would be peaceful (at least more peaceful then one which requires a gov't) and since this society lacks a gov't to restrict rights people would have complete freedom (as long as they don't harm others?). Therefore a society of well educated peaceful humans no longer needs gov't so therefore anarchy is the ideal form of gov't. Is this the correct reasoning? Because if so I have no problem with that line of thought at all, if not please correct me.

Anarchism in our world (I do not understand what you mean by "perfect world" works and has worked numerous times due to human beings normally and naturally respecting each other.

There is no need to over emphasize the need for education. Poor peasants of Chiapas were well enough educated to implement libertarian communism as were those of Catalonia.



You could do yourself a favor and read some of the anarchist faq I gave a link for, so you'd know what anarchism is and have your counter arguments answered, I call it quits now.

We are a very fearful, illogical, primal race and due to this evolutionary short coming I do not see anarchy without violence as ever occuring, or at least not in my lifetime or any time in the next century or two.

It is occurring in Chiapas right now, and occurred 70 years ago in Spain and in Ukraine.

On November 23 2010 05:32 Baal wrote: if you were born in a different time you would have thought that the earth was flat and held by 4 elephants on a giant turtle...

wait... You're saying Discworld isn't reality?

still waiting for theories on who specifically was responsible for the demolition, also:

what is the point in actually planting explosives in the towers if terrorists are going to fly planes into the building anyway, it doesn't make sense.

You think Bush was involved right, Baal? Do you think Obama knows now too?

true love is blind eh Feiticeira

On November 23 2010 05:55 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 05:32 Baal wrote: to believe what the majority of "experts" believe is stupid hasnt history showed you anything? if you were born in a different time you would have thought that the earth was flat and held by 4 elephants on a giant turtle... i would have and I would have been wrong as would u? I hate the different time argument. As if you were born 3 thousand years ago in say China you would not have considered the Emperor to be God even though you would have been taught that from birth and also would have been taught that questioning authority is wrong. Your mindset towards questioning and life is purely a product of your times. So yes I believe what the majority of experts in a given scientific field or line of thought say is true through the evidence at their disposal. If I find or hear about evidence which contradicts these beliefs/facts/knowledge then I will alter my beliefs of what I say I know. Just as if someone genuinely presents solid irrefutable evidence that evolution is wrong, that god is real, that black holes do not exist, that 9/11 was a demolition etc then I will change my thoughts on the subject. But I have yet to read or hear evidence which has not been disputed to my liking. You also seem to really hate people that believe in god and call them blind believers..yet most people who believe in god do it because they have evaluated the scientific and other evidence and have come to that conclusion on their own. That's why it's so hard to convert people between religions and damned near impossible to get someone to stop believing a conspiracy theory or vice versa, once someone has looked through the evidence and come to a conclusion on their own they will very rarely change their mind especially when an altering of the belief will alter their world view. Personal example of this is I know people who are far smarter and more successful then me who are extremely extremely religious. Do I think they are blind idiots, no, are they misinterpreting the facts in front of them (imo yes). e.g. Your view the world (I think) as a place run by corrupt wealthy powerful people who use gov't and money to manipulate people into their own goals like oil and war profitering. So when something like 9/11 comes along it is incredibly easy for you to make what you see as a logical jump of, US gov't wants to invade the middle east, 9/11 gives them the perfect opportunity to do so, therefore US gov't likely helped in 9/11. That way when you find a minority of people who present some evidence to justify your suspicions you are more accepting of that evidence then you are of evidence which contradicts your own personal world view. I don't wanna put words in your mouth and this may easily be wrong...if so feel free to bitch me out...i'm just stating what i've observed from ur posts. tloapc good answer.

I was born catholic, raised by catholic parents went to catholic school, i am an atheist since i were 14 because it simply made no sense.

I was born in a society ruled by the state indoctrinated into voting bla bla bla, i am an anarchist since a couple of years ago, i think these two are clear examples that i do not rule myself by what the majority thinks.

So no, if i were born thousands of years ago, i probably wouldnt have believed that the earth was flat, i would realized how illogical that was and thought otherwise.


Yes my view on the world is that it is run by corporations in partnership with governments for their own benefit, if you dont believe this just turn around and tell me what you see.

That i know this doesnt delude me into conspiracy theories i just see the WTC7 collapsing and it is mind bogging how ridiculous that is, i honestly dont think an intelligent analitical person cannot see that, anyone who doesnt see it its deluded and an idiot, just like religious people.

Dare to think for yourself, question your beliefs, question your culture, question your values, question authority and yourself.

If every person did this in this world there would be no violence, hunger, war or hatred, a total utopia is just this close, yet so far

[/b]

On November 23 2010 10:27 Feiticeira wrote: still waiting for theories on who specifically was responsible for the demolition, also: what is the point in actually planting explosives in the towers if terrorists are going to fly planes into the building anyway, it doesn't make sense. You think Bush was involved right, Baal? Do you think Obama knows now too?

specifically? how on earth could i know?, i dont have a crystal ball as i said, i only looked at the evidence and it is extremely obvious those buildings were demolished and the reasons are obvious too.

By conclusion to who are responsible id point fingers at people who would have benefited from declaring war on afghanistan and Iraq, that would be the Federal Reserve, Oiling companies, many politicians, armament manufacturers etc.

Bush Jr. was involved? definitely while very likely not the main guy behind it (lol) this could hardly happened without him knowing and i mean just look at his dad ffs, so yes Bush's administration was obviously involved in it.

Obama? knowing? do you mean involved or just knowing/thinking it happened? Involved i really doubt it, knowing or thinking its very likely, he is a very intelligent man, he is also a politician so he knows what his kind is capable of and also has a lot of information we dont have so its likely he does knows/thinks that they were demolished, but im just speculating here.

On November 24 2010 01:50 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 23 2010 05:55 palak wrote:   On November 23 2010 05:32 Baal wrote: to believe what the majority of "experts" believe is stupid hasnt history showed you anything? if you were born in a different time you would have thought that the earth was flat and held by 4 elephants on a giant turtle... i would have and I would have been wrong as would u? I hate the different time argument. As if you were born 3 thousand years ago in say China you would not have considered the Emperor to be God even though you would have been taught that from birth and also would have been taught that questioning authority is wrong. Your mindset towards questioning and life is purely a product of your times. So yes I believe what the majority of experts in a given scientific field or line of thought say is true through the evidence at their disposal. If I find or hear about evidence which contradicts these beliefs/facts/knowledge then I will alter my beliefs of what I say I know. Just as if someone genuinely presents solid irrefutable evidence that evolution is wrong, that god is real, that black holes do not exist, that 9/11 was a demolition etc then I will change my thoughts on the subject. But I have yet to read or hear evidence which has not been disputed to my liking. You also seem to really hate people that believe in god and call them blind believers..yet most people who believe in god do it because they have evaluated the scientific and other evidence and have come to that conclusion on their own. That's why it's so hard to convert people between religions and damned near impossible to get someone to stop believing a conspiracy theory or vice versa, once someone has looked through the evidence and come to a conclusion on their own they will very rarely change their mind especially when an altering of the belief will alter their world view. Personal example of this is I know people who are far smarter and more successful then me who are extremely extremely religious. Do I think they are blind idiots, no, are they misinterpreting the facts in front of them (imo yes). e.g. Your view the world (I think) as a place run by corrupt wealthy powerful people who use gov't and money to manipulate people into their own goals like oil and war profitering. So when something like 9/11 comes along it is incredibly easy for you to make what you see as a logical jump of, US gov't wants to invade the middle east, 9/11 gives them the perfect opportunity to do so, therefore US gov't likely helped in 9/11. That way when you find a minority of people who present some evidence to justify your suspicions you are more accepting of that evidence then you are of evidence which contradicts your own personal world view. I don't wanna put words in your mouth and this may easily be wrong...if so feel free to bitch me out...i'm just stating what i've observed from ur posts. tloapc good answer. Dare to think for yourself, question your beliefs, question your culture, question your values, question authority and yourself. If every person did this in this world there would be no violence, hunger, war or hatred, a total utopia is just this close, yet so far

I wouldn't go that far, but damn, old Baal is best Baal. Current Baal has become too cynical and comfortable. Needs to start questioning things more again.

I searched for this thread because I stumbled upon a Peter Joseph interview yesterday and I figured I'd post it in a Zeitgeist thread if there was one. I never thought much of his Zeitgeist project, but it was nice reading this thread and being reminded that this site used to have some pretty decent conversations going. Particularly impressed by auffenpuffer's posts. Peter Joseph seems to have become a more serious thinker over time. I couldn't find stuff to disagree with him about in this interview. He seems to have more or less the same outlook and broad interests as me, even including some talk on cybernetics in one part. He might just not be aware of the more recent developments in complexity theory.

Edit: all parts in one here:




--------------------

On May 27 2018 03:27 Loco wrote: I wouldn't go that far, but damn, old Baal is best Baal. Current Baal has become too cynical and comfortable. Needs to start questioning things more again. I searched for this thread because I stumbled upon a Peter Joseph interview yesterday and I figured I'd post it in a Zeitgeist thread if there was one. I never thought much of his Zeitgeist project, but it was nice reading this thread and being reminded that this site used to have some pretty decent conversations going. Particularly impressed by auffenpuffer's posts. Peter Joseph seems to have become a more serious thinker over time. I couldn't find stuff to disagree with him about in this interview. He seems to have more or less the same outlook and broad interests as me, even including some talk on cybernetics in one part. He might just not be aware of the more recent developments in complexity theory.

perhaps my friend, cynical and comfortable quite describe me lol, maybe its happiness, suffering leads to introspection.

I probalby give the feel of certainty in my beliefs but I certainly aren't I doubt myself more than ever, im not even sure about capitalism being better than socialism, you might be right.

Old Loco is best Loco, and I'll return the favor of honest old-time-sake critique, you have grown conceited

On November 24 2010 01:50 Baalim wrote: So no, if i were born thousands of years ago, i probably wouldnt have believed that the earth was flat, i would realized how illogical that was and thought otherwise.

umm didn't read everything but old Baal def not best Baal
current Baal ftw

Some naivety makes a person charming or at least entertaining. Absolute cynicism ruins them.

people usually shift from idealistic to pragmatic as they get older. Then they accuse each other of naivety and cynicism accordingly

Sure, but it's a mistake to think that being open to exploring possibilities means that you are idealistic (unrealistic) and incapable of being pragmatic. It's also a mistake to assume that cynicism is related to maturity and a warranted skepticism. It's a widely held belief, which should tell us that it's a comforting illusion. It's certainly not an outlook that's acquired through effort, it's more of side-effect of being atomized within a culture of sameness. You have to be in a bubble where you and everyone else you know are always self-interested in order to project it onto the rest of world and close yourself off to actual empirical data to the contrary as a result.

Something I've learned in recent years is that it isn't utopian ideals that are dangerous, it's dogmatism. A person--and by extension a civilization-- that doesn't seek highly desirable results for itself is one that can only be degenerative. It's indispensable for evolution. Dogma has always existed to maintain one's prerogatives and dominance. Both on the right and the left, it is the true enemy.


"If you do not hope, you will not win that which is not hoped for, since it is unattainable and inaccessible."
— Heraclitus

I don't think my values has changed in any significant manner. Have become significantly less revolutionary and more about incremental improvement (which I attribute to a greater understanding of how revolutions have a tendency to backfire), but the society I idealize is pretty much the same as a 34 year old as it was when I was 20.

I don't accept that I have become less idealistic, perhaps slightly less naive, but I also try to cling on to some degree of naivety - mostly because I vastly prefer that over cynicism in other people, 'be the change you want to make in other people' and all that.

You've always been one of the few people who actually listen to arguments instead of just trying to impose your own like loco and I do (regardless if we say we dont )

You're implying that I just dismiss ideas I don't like, which I don't do. I don't even dismiss what is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction a lot of the time, I often respond to it even though it doesn't deserve to be responded to. Especially when it comes down to political economy, a lot of it is just knee jerk, memes and tropes that you can find in most YouTube comment sections being repeated over and over. People aren't really thinking about the things they say on this subject most of the time, probably because they don't do any serious reading. They are just repeating things they've heard or superficially read into. "Socialism is just stealing money", "socialism has always failed, you have to be pretty arrogant to think YOU could do it better," "Marxism has killed 100 million people" etc. aren't arguments, they're a waste of time. I'm sorry if you don't realize the difference. I always listen carefully if I can learn something, but you don't learn from knee jerk reactions and tropes.

I've read a lot on human cognition and communication. I understand the importance of not negating another person, especially since I've read Humberto Maturana's "Tree of Life" last year, that point was really driven home for me. I think you do a fair amount of negating in a discussion. I'm not the one constantly saying "this is one of the most stupid things you've ever said," "this is retarded," etc. Yes, I'm not a saint, I can get frustrated like everyone else. But in discussions that are centered around empirical matters, it's impossible for the discussion to be "egalitarian" if there is a discrepancy in two people's evidence-gathering capabilities. The result has to come out as one person being better informed and "imposing" by necessity, as far as I can tell.

dude I was paying a compliment to Drone, relax.

You weren't just paying him a compliment though. And you weren't even just saying that he is high in trait agreeableness while you and I are low in it, which I would have simply agreed with you with. But being opinionated and forceful is one thing, refusing to listen to others is another entirely. I don't accept that criticism as valid. I have plenty of personality flaws but this is not one, so speak for yourself if you think it applies to you. I also slightly misread your post so I went into a bigger rant as a result... Most of our disagreements have centered around political economy so I thought I'd point out part of why it is that I might not respond with the utmost respect and patience on this topic.

Zeitgeist mockumentary

http://skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/