15 votes

The Fundamental Differences Between Us

When people disagree, one thing I always try to do is figure out what is the fundamental disagreement. If you get to the very bottom of an argument you will normally find the main presupposition upon which you disagree. I find this exercise extremely helpful in that it makes me think about my own position and it also helps me intelligently debate against the contrary opinion.

Let me give you an example of how this works. Let's take the issue of gun control. On one side you have those who advocate for a European style gun control and on the other you have those who advocate for the status quo or even less regulation on firearms. Why this disagreement? On both sides are people who are rational, intelligent, who love their children and truly want what is best for this country (of course their are malicious trolls on both sides as well). This is where it is helpful to get to the bottom issue. Let me walk you through what I think the foundational issue is.

The gun control advocates (I am generalizing broadly) want guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. They don't want them around except for military and police. When I listen to these people and hear their arguments I think they basically believe two things: First, that it is primarily the government's job to protect you. This means it is not your job, at least not first. There is an assumption by this group that the protection of life and property are primarily to be protected by someone else, i.e. the police. The second assumption they have is that the people in power can be trusted. In limiting who may have weapons there is an assumption on their part that the 'authorities' are trust-worthy and good. So, to sum up their foundational argument it goes like this: it's the government's job to protect you, and we can trust those in power.

Now, let's look at the gun advocate side. It's basically the opposite view. Why must a citizen be able to have a weapon (besides that it is an inherent right, ect.)? It is for two basic reasons: First, it is primarily the individual's responsibility to protect one's life and property. This implies that it is not the government's job, at least not primarily. If someone breaks into my house I will get my weapon and call the police, in that order. I want the police to come, but it is my responsibility, right, and duty to protect myself, family, and property first. The second reason is this; people are basically bad. There is a lot of garbage out there saying people are basically good deep down. But this simply is not true. We have great capacity to do good, this is true. However, we are deep down bad. We tend towards evil, not good. This is true of those in power as well. History teaches us that power corrupts. It teaches us that those in power will eventually abuse it and subjugate their people. While their are many people in power in the US who are good, responsible, and decent, they still have the tendency to do bad. I am not a fatalist, but the reality is; people are bad, and given the opportunity, they will do wrong. This premise urges me to arm myself, not as some crazy militant, but as one living in the reality of the world. So, to sum up the gun advocate/libertarian position; it is primarily your responsibility to protect your life and property, and people are basically bad.

Until we begin to engage on the foundational issues, we will never make progress in spreading liberty. We can debate facts, we can get emotional, but the most profitable thing we can do is get people to talk about the fundamental differences between us. What do you think?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I also appreciate your rational comments

In response to your questions:
Yes, there is a lot of money involved but in reality that is only helping speed up the process. It works on a small scale but it definitely takes a much longer time and leaves more room for corruption to seep in. The funding efforts involved have arguably taken from 10-14 years, so yes it has been a tough road.

Yes, there are banks involved, but in this situation their cut is essentially nil. And they won't be involved for very long if all goes well. The money is not coming from them, they are just transacting it.

After wages increase, the workers do get a new mindset. And yes, that does eliminate the "need" for them. Fortunately, that doesn't mean they get fired. It just means that they need to work less hours for the same pay. This is the beginning of the trend towards earlier and earlier retirements and it only works if the owners don't get greedy. This is avoided by everyone getting an excess in wages (as compared to today's rates) and a team environment where home life sustainability is a primary goal. (Picture, for starters, splitting the central banks' profit among price cuts, owner profits and wage increases.)

An example of what home life sustainability means would be that people don't pay for electricity anymore because they are producing an excess from home renewables. Other examples cover pretty much everything else they might want with one-time purchases. This is why it's a consortium of many companies and not just one technology to make this work. It literally takes many products to get the 'average' homeowner completely off the grid in all areas. We're currently only shooting for 9x% complete.

Yes, the company essentially works for the community, but the owner (holding the personal accountability) does make more than the rest. That's not to say he makes 1,000 times the workers' average but certainly a few times. In return for this lowering of his wages, he gets tremendous community good faith.

What would people do with their spare time? Should this all begin to take place, about 15% of the people would work for their hobby (according to numerous studies) and many would become more active in their hobbies (which translates somewhat loosely to the arts) and still others would simply enjoy family life more.

Those currently in the category of TPTB who would try to game the overall system cannot do their games without conspiring others to help them. Be it government or personal minions, they must enlist help somewhere. If the economy was on average 'equal' (qualified here), why would anyone agree to help the bad guy if they were getting nothing they didn't already have access to? It's probably there would still be some that would but the numbers would be greatly reduced. And the power they wield would be reduced as well because less people would be afraid to stand up to them.

I'm not suggesting we actively destroy the central banks. Seeing how the 'End the Fed' movement is dragging shows that is unlikely. I'm suggesting that we cut off enough of their income that they implode. Remember, they are leveraged so far now that they need bailouts to continue to survive. What would happen if 10% of the people stopped paying monthly fees to them? What about 20% or 50%? Same as with mega-corporations who lose market share, stocks dive and it's only a matter of DAYS before they tank.

I'll agree to disagree on the religion thing but I fail to see a single thing that relies on any aspect of religion to help better the situation. I do, however, see many many things where religion has undercut the efforts of people. Relative to this topic, the idea that people are inherently bad (i.e. original sin exists in a newborn???) is just a form of fear-mongering and serves wonderfully to stop people from seeing that most bad actions are simply compromises toward either surviving or moving up the social ladder.

Denise B's picture

Certainly an

intriguing and well-thought out idea, and also it sounds as if you have already started to put it into practice...correct? And my initial perception does seem to be incorrect (as far as socialism goes) because it appears that this is a voluntary system, while socialism is typically implemented with force. It would be very interesting to see how it unfolds and the topic is definitely worth it's own separate post, where you could maybe provide periodic updates on your progress...

We are in agreement about how to deal with the central banking issue as well, just shutting them down would be next to impossible at this point; however, if true competition (alternative currencies, or even what you are proposing) were introduced, I believe it would be just a matter of time until they implode, just as you stated.

Just for clarification too, although Christianity states that all are born with original sin (including newborns), you are not held accountable for your actions until you reach the age of consent, which in the Jewish tradition is traditionally 13 or so (even we do not contend that God sends infants to Hell). Unfortunately, as all things in this world tend to get corrupted, so too has "religion" and many things have been done in the name of it that have nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.

Good luck with your endevour and please do keep us posted!

Thnx for the wishes

My opinion of your thinking has definitely switched over to the good side. (I don't remember the exact reason you were originally on the 'slightly' negative side.)

To be clear, though, it's for everyone's benefit. And I'm not the one in charge. I'm but a small company founder in the mix of many others. I just have a very good grasp of the big picture and use that to rally others onto the path. I'm not 'out there' to recruit public support as much as feel out new members. For that reason, I'm not really pushing the post that I did start on the topic. All will be known in good time.

Denise B's picture

You're very

welcome. I appreciate your kind remarks as well and I look forward to hearing more about your progress in the future :)

Name that tune?

Man of Straw argument.

If the idea is to know another perspective, a competitive viewpoint, a good person could - reasonably - figure out how.

If the idea is to claim to know what another person's viewpoint is, despite what the other person say's, or writes, then there is an accurate name for that process.

Any guesses?

Joe

Denise B's picture

Not sure

I am following you Josf....enlighten me....

One step at a time.

Exactly what do you mean when you use the word socialism?

Exactly what was written to cause you to say that something "sounded" like socialism?

I read what was written before your comment and agreed with the meaning that was expressed in the words written, so far as I can understand the words that were written, so the negative commentary appears to be out of place - to me - and the negative commentary is typical of what is understandable as a Man of Straw argument.

If you fail to understand what the person says, then you can ask for clarification, as you are doing with me. If you hear what sounds like socialism, then it may be a good idea to quote what "sounds" like socialism, and then the person who wrote what you think sounds like socialism could conceivably explain what was meant without confusion.

If the idea is to censor the information offered, instead of understand it, then a Straw Man created by you, such as a claim by you where the words you don't want to hear, or the words you want to censor, are falsely associated with a creation of your imagination, such as a Man of Straw is constructed out of Straw. When using a Man of Straw argument to censor information, the constructor of the Man of Straw purposefully makes the targets "argument" easy to pull apart, and then all the constructor of the Man of Straw has to do to defeat the target is to continue to avoid listening to the target, and then pull apart the false "argument" placed upon the target.

Someone says white, and you say, no that is black. The person means white, but you want to construct a false version of white, so you call it black, and then you can prove that it is not black; meanwhile your target want's to know who exactly said that it was black?

How about an example of a hypothetical Person A and Person B.

Person A says:

"People are basically good as measured by the fact that people survive even in difficult situations, whereby those people manage to be generous, pull together, share resources, and end up with an abundance of the stuff that was momentarily scarce. An example would be such as often happens after natural disasters; common things among the human species: to make life better even when nature makes life really tough."

Person B says:

"That sounds like socialism, and we all know that men are bad, so your example is another case of people being bad, which happens all the time."

Person A says:

"Exactly what sounds like socialism, if you please, so as both of us can share resources, and end up with a common understanding of what socialism means?"

Person B says:

"I have no idea what you are talking about, but it is socialism, so it is bad, because people are bad, and in particular you are bad, because, obviously, you are a socialist."

Person A says:

"So are you proving exactly how true your claim is by setting the example?"

Joe

Denise B's picture

My comments

concerning the socialist tone was in reference specifically to the "out of the box" comments, which tended to immediately cast a bad light on all millionaires (simply I suppose because they have a lot of money) and also the reference to addressing economic "inequality". This in a nutshell is the how the socialists frame their arguments for socialism (i.e.: rich people are automatically bad because they have a lot of money and it is not fair that everyone doesn't have a lot of money, regardless of whether or not they actually work for it or do anything to earn it). Giving something to people who have not earned it (usually taken from somebody else by force) is the core of socialism and "economic inequality" is one of their frequently used slogans).

Also, Josf, you apparently misunderstand me, as well as my intent in my comments. I am in no way trying to censor anybody and would defend anyone's right to express whatever views they want to. That does not mean that I have to agree with it and on a website that promotes the idea of free speech, I should also be free to give my own differing opinion without being accused of "censorship". I don't agree with the posters point of view, but I respect their right to voice it!

I also believe that people get upset and defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad because it assaults their pride. Most people tend to look at themselves as a "good" person and resent that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. To me, though, good behavior is defined by God and His laws and statutes and any actions which are outside of those fail to be "good" and even if appearing "good" to the world in general, usually have selfishness that their core (i.e. something to be gained by their "good" behavior).

As a Christian; I do not deny that many people can display acts of "goodness" and incredible kindess, but I also assert that God's common grace is the only reason that anyone displays "goodness" at all and that if you were to remove that in it's entirety, this world would literally be hell on earth. To me, all you have to do is turn on the news for an hour for proof that people at their core are not good. Everywhere you look there is corruption, greed, robbery, murder, dishonesty...the list goes on an on. The very reason this country is failing is because people in general have given themselves over to corruption, immorality and selfishness and have rejected God as lord of their lives. This is nothing new, it has been the pattern of human behavior as long as there have been humans.

It really boils down to differing world views, and that is fine. I am not saying that anybody has to agree with me, but at the same time I am also entitled to my own beliefs.

Pot calling the kettle black?

"This in a nutshell is the how the socialists frame their arguments for socialism"

If you can point out ONE socialist, find ONE, have that ONE pointed out, as a reference, an actual socialist, ONE example, for all to see, then YOUR exclusive measure of that ONE socialist will not be only YOUR viewpoint. You can share.

You have this viewpoint of "socialists".

Provide an example of ONE.

Now that you have ONE, instead of eluding to ONE, and instead of an ambiguous nothingness, you have in front of everyone, to see, this socialist example, now that it is in view, this socialist, how about describing exactly what this socialist said, in this socialists own words, so that you can then allow anyone else to hear what this socialist has to say, straight from the socialists mouth, without any miscommunication that may arise from your offering a translation of what the socialists had said?

I can offer one up, if you can't.

Now you are claiming that someone on this forum has said something that sounded like a nebulous socialist that remains very well hidden behind a cloak of smoke and mirrors. So consider removing the smoke and mirrors, please.

Now the person on this forum is guilty by association, according to you, with this socialist that remains hidden behind smoke and mirrors.

In your own words:

_______________________________
concerning the socialist tone was in reference specifically to the "out of the box"
_______________________________

I've heard a lot of people, most people, speaking out of the box, which is a measure of creativity.

Now, out of the smoke and mirrors, I am supposed to now know, from your words, that a socialist is a creative person?

Note the question mark.

More of your words:

_______________________________
which tended to immediately cast a bad light on all millionaires (simply I suppose because they have a lot of money) and also the reference to addressing economic "inequality".
________________________________

Now, not having the actual words quoted from the person on this forum who has been rendered guilty by association with nebulous socialists, these boogie men, these whatever is a socialist, now the picture of just how guilty the person on this forum is, concerning just exactly how close this person on this forum is to this boogie man, now, your version of the words of the person who is guilty of being so close to the boogie man, will have to do?

Now, I see a need to actually return back to the words of the person being so well placed in guilt by association with a nebulous boogie man, socialist, hidden behind such volumes of smoke, and reflected in so many mirrors.

"Out of the box thinking...
Instead of labeling them and tracking their activities and trying to teach right from wrong, how about we create an environment where the gains of doing wrong are gone? If we ended scarcity, I think most, if not all, crimes of greed and want would disappear. (Sans the obvious mental health related ones.) If a person lived in a world where things were either free or very cheap (in personal cost) most crimes would vanish."

So...

Socialism is along the same lines as "create an environment where the gains of doing wrong are gone"

yes or no?

Socialism is along the same lines as "If we ended scarcity, I think most, if not all, crimes of greed and want would disappear."

yes or no, is that socialism?

Socialism is along the same lines as "If a person lived in a world where things were either free or very cheap (in personal cost) most crimes would vanish."

Or, on the other hand, socialism is:

_________________________________
My comments concerning the socialist tone was in reference specifically to the "out of the box" comments, which tended to immediately cast a bad light on all millionaires (simply I suppose because they have a lot of money) and also the reference to addressing economic "inequality".
_________________________________

Who "cast a bad light on millionaires"?

Who used the word "inequality"?

Who is constructing a Man of Straw where the Man of Straw speaks about casting a "bad light on millionaires" and who is speaking about "inequality"?

If productive people produce more, without having their products stolen, what do you think will happen?

Your Man of Straw, where you hang a fellow forum member out to dry, on your false association, guilt by false association routine, that YOU are doing right here in this forum, falsely convicting some innocent person, YOU do, right here, continues with the following fabricated LIES.

"Giving something to people who have not earned it (usually taken from somebody else by force) is the core of socialism and "economic inequality" is one of their frequently used slogans)."

You are describing crime, so why use the word socialism?

You are claiming that a fellow forum member who publishes matter-of-fact, reasoned, reasonable, common sense, factual, information, in a kind way, in a discussion, an innocent discussion, this fellow forum member offers a logical viewpoint, and you falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals.

Why?

"one of their frequently used slogans"

They: meaning the fellow forum member you convict publicly and sentence publicly, for the crime of offering a common sense viewpoint for competitive review.

YOU punish the innocent.

You do that, right here, in black and white.

"Also, Josf, you apparently misunderstand me, as well as my intent in my comments. I am in no way trying to censor anybody and would defend anyone's right to express whatever views they want to."

Then why do you twist a fellow forum members words into meanings that are opposite what was obviously intended? Why do you falsely connect the fellow forum member with criminals that you call socialists?

If you were not intending to censor (as in shoot the messenger) then why did you make the false connection between the fellow forum member and criminals?

" That does not mean that I have to agree with it and on a website that promotes the idea of free speech, I should also be free to give my own differing opinion without being accused of "censorship". I don't agree with the posters point of view, but I respect their right to voice it!"

You did not agree with your false interpretation of what the fellow forum member actually said, so your false conviction (but your real punishment) of that fellow forum member was, in fact, a case of you shooting the messenger as you falsely convicted that fellow forum member of something that that fellow forum member is innocent of doing - quite the opposite.

You falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals in this way:

"Giving something to people who have not earned it (usually taken from somebody else by force) is the core of socialism and "economic inequality" is one of their frequently used slogans)."

How is it, in your mind, that the fellow forum member you find to be guilty enough to have their good name dragged through this mud that you are slinging, injuring that innocent person with this bad press, public hanging of sorts, as your words falsely associate that innocent forum member with thieves, or people who take from "somebody else by force"?

You are taking, by the force of deception, a person's good name, right here, right now.

Are you providing the example of just how bad people are these days?

"but I respect their right to voice it!"

If you did, as you say, respect their right to voice it, then why do you twist "it" around into something bad, when the target of your false advertizement campaign was offering something good?

"I also believe that people get upset and defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad because it assaults their pride."

Now you appear to be wandering into some smoke and mirrors whereby the actual facts are to be lost, as if by magic. If instead of wandering into smoke and mirrors the idea is to actually discuss something real, then it may help, in that positive, good, direction, to find someone that exemplifies exactly what you are trying to communicate with your words.

Who exemplifies a person who may be "upset or defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad"?

Is there a boogie man somewhere, or do you have someone in mind?

Many good people are easy to find, there is one on this forum, at least one, and you targeted that one for exploitation.

You exemplify what is bad.

Your target exemplifies what is good.

Now there is an obvious competition as to see which is bad and which is good.

You are bad.

Your target is good.

What makes you bad.

What makes your target good?

The fact that you attack an innocent person with lies makes you bad.

The fact that your target expresses common sense on a forum while risking attacks by people like you makes that person generous, and good.

Who is upset?

I think that another Man of Straw is being constructed out of more smoke and more mirrors by you.

How bad can you get?

I am now your next target?

Are you building up this upset person so as to then attach my name on your fabrication?

"Most people tend to look at themselves as a "good" person and resent that anyone would ever suggest otherwise."

Where is the evidence of this claim, which you claim in such a way as to present the claim as if the claim was fact. Where is any evidence that backs up this claim?

I am interested in knowing the facts, so please consider backing up this claim as this claim does not sound true to me, this claim, to me, sounds ambiguous to a point of meaning anything one minute and the opposite the next minute.

Most people do not want to be injured, so your attack upon the fellow forum member sends a message to most people, and the message says: "Don't speak your mind here, don't come in here and speak common sense words, because if you do, I will convict you, by false association with criminals, nailing you to a cross, of my false construction."

Now, what you appear to be doing, is making up this upset person, and you are going to nail me to that cross.

Now, what you are doing, is making other people up, nameless people, to be tending to look at themselves as "good" people and "they" resent anyone ever suggesting otherwise.

Where is ONE of these such people, and when you find one, they can either be upset, or not be upset, in reality, and no one will have to depend upon your fabrications of Straw Men.

_________________________________________
I also believe that people get upset and defensive when confronted with the notion of human beings inherently bad because it assaults their pride. Most people tend to look at themselves as a "good" person and resent that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. To me, though, good behavior is defined by God and His laws and statutes and any actions which are outside of those fail to be "good" and even if appearing "good" to the world in general, usually have selfishness that their core (i.e. something to be gained by their "good" behavior).
__________________________________________

What that may be saying, and you can certainly clarify in case of any error by anyone, including me: "they" are bad, in this way, but I am not guilty of being bad in that way.

They become upset.

Where is one person who is upset?

Where is one person who is selfish?

When someone begins to collect "they" into a group, then that someone does so for a reason.

Is the reason called prejudice?

"As a Christian; I do not deny that many people can display acts of "goodness" and incredible kindess, but I also assert that God's common grace is the only reason that anyone displays "goodness" at all and that if you were to remove that in it's entirety, this world would literally be hell on earth."

To me it does not matter by which POWER an individual person decides to be good, since the actual decision maker is responsible in any case.

You could have decided not to create the Man of Straw to be used upon the innocent victims in this case, for example, and you could have decided not to falsely associate the fellow forum member with criminals, but you did, so I guess by your own confession, God's grace left you at that moment.

"To me, all you have to do is turn on the news for an hour for proof that people at their core are not good. Everywhere you look there is corruption, greed, robbery, murder, dishonesty...the list goes on an on."

Examples of a lack of God's grace is provided right here by you, who needs television?

"The very reason this country is failing is because people in general have given themselves over to corruption, immorality and selfishness and have rejected God as lord of their lives. This is nothing new, it has been the pattern of human behavior as long as there have been humans."

No, I think that is another case of prejudice, whereby "everyone" is guilty for the bad things done by people, like you, who choose to do bad things like dragging fellow forum members through the mud, by falsely associating innocent people with criminals.

"It really boils down to differing world views, and that is fine."

It is finer for you, I suppose, since your innocent victim, that you drug through the mud, by falsely associating your fellow forum member with criminals, because you get away with it, in your own mind, by blaming what you did on "everybody"?

You take no responsibility, no accountability, for the wrongs you do, and that is fine by you?

You call your personal attack by nice sounding words like "differing world views" and that is fine to you?

" I am not saying that anybody has to agree with me, but at the same time I am also entitled to my own beliefs."

What you did, in English, is you took someone posting reasonable words, factual words, and twisted them around so as to falsely associate that fellow forum member with criminals: guilt by association.

You did that, not "everyone", and if you actually believe your own words, then God's grace left you when you did it.

Now, you have a choice, admit it, or reject your own stated belief.

Ohhhhh but it is me, of course, I am part of the collective, as we are all guilty of bad things done by everyone?

It is fine, don't worry, God's grace will cover it up for me.

Joe

Denise B's picture

Oh my

word, Josf, I would say that “pot calling the kettle black” was an ironic choice for the title of your post. Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a site that allows two-sided conversations. There was nothing that I stated which the other poster wasn’t free to address or correct if my conclusions were incorrect, thereby, clearing their “good name”.

Let me first respond by saying that my belief that all people are born with a tendency towards “bad behavior” or as I would call it “sin”, does not exclude myself. I will be the first to admit that I have done “bad things” in my life and despite my being a Christian, continue to do “bad things” (including on occasion speaking in an unkind or unloving manner). If I was to measure all of the things I’ve done in my life against what God’s laws require I would be guilty by His standards a thousand times over and I do not deny that. It was that realization which led me to accept my need for a Savior.

If you want an example of someone who was offended by the notion that all people are born with a tendency to sin, it would be me. I have not always been a Christian and was very much offended when the notion of me being sinful was first presented to me. I was one of those people who were convinced that I was a good person....the problem being that I was measuring my actions by the standards of this world and not by God’s. I have friends and family members who are not Christian who remain very offended by that suggestion as well. I also have witnessed that sense of offense on this very site when the topic comes up.

Let me add, also that my belief that everyone is born with the tendency to sin does not mean that I don’t also care about them or that I think I am somehow better than them. In my mind, people need to realize this truth before salvation can occur, which ultimately is what I would want for everyone. My motives are good, though often my delivery is quite bad. I am aware that I can come off at times as sounding judgmental and uncaring (a sin I struggle with)... it is something I am working on. But I can assure you that my motives are never malicious...if I say something it is because it is what I truly believe or interpret and my perceptions are not always right...this I readily admit.

I am overly hostile to “socialist” thinking because I believe it is an evil system, that although can sound good in theory, never achieves it’s stated goal of economic equality. I don’t believe that any system which requires the giving of something to someone which they have done nothing to earn will result in anything but failure and inequality. If you want me to give examples of socialists you need look no further than most of the people currently running this government, and especially Barrack Obama himself.

If I incorrectly perceived the other posters comments as promoting socialistic ideas, than he/she was certainly free to correct my assumptions. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Like I have often said before, true freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend and in a truly free society where freedom of speech is protected, you can pretty much guarantee that on occasion you will be offended. Whatever your perception of me may be Josf, I can tell you with all honesty that I have nothing but feelings of good will toward you and appreciate your own efforts to restore liberty in this country.

Fundamental difference Topi

Here is a quote of your words:

"Oh my word, Josf, I would say that “pot calling the kettle black” was an ironic choice for the title of your post. Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

In fact my intent of responding to YOUR request for me to "enlighten you" was to present to you something simulating what you do, with one exception.

Rather than me claiming to be good, and everyone else is bad, I am showing you a perspective that identifies exactly what YOU do, in fact.

So, and again, exactly what is it that is "unkind"?

Exactly what is it that is "slanderous"?

YOU publicly claim that I am guilty of "slander"?

Note the question mark.

These are your words:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where in all the world, or only published on this Forum, is an example of you being slanderous?

Where is an example of me being slanderous?

Where can your example of slander be judged, by anyone, to be "every bit as unkind and slanderous" as mine?

I am being accurate. I use quotes. Your words are being re-published, as quotes, to show exactly what you published, and then I ask, with question marks, if I "get it" as to what you are doing - exactly.

If you are merely jerking your knee, acting like a trained robot, in your use of this forum to discredit someone by false association with criminals then that is not willful, in that sense, so I can ask, and you can then avoid the answer by misdirecting the focus of attention away from your willful use of the is forum.

Did you willfully decide to falsely associate a fellow forum member with criminals or was the fact that your words did falsely associate a fellow forum member with criminals happen without your willful intent to do so?

Now you convict me of slander.

Where is the evidence of this slander?

Are you now operating without willful intent as you convict me of slander?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where is this person who uses the word "slanderous"?

Who is this "you" person in the sentence you are constructing and publishing on this forum as follows?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Where did I supposedly claim that you are unkind or slanderous?

I used the word bad, because that was the claim you made to judge everyone "generally" and I did not use the word unkind or slanderous, so the lies you continue to construct are lies, they are false, and if you are not responsible for those lies, then who is responsible for those lies?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is a lie. Where did I ever say that your words were unkind or slanderous?

Your Man of Straw may have done things, said things, but what does that have to do with me?

"Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a site that allows two-sided conversations. There was nothing that I stated which the other poster wasn’t free to address or correct if my conclusions were incorrect, thereby, clearing their “good name”."

Which was done, in fact. That is a changing of the subject, a changing of the focus, an alteration of the factual accounting of the fact that what your words did (intended by you or not) was to convict the target of your words of a false association with criminals, and that is what you are now doing to me.

Where am I guilty of slander as you now claim?

These words:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

Your words (assuming that you write things that are not of your own free will) falsely associate me with a claim of slander.

When did I ever claim that your words were slanderous?

Your words now are lies, fabrications of your own mind, as I have done no such thing as what you claim that I have done. Why do you lie? Are your lies a product of ritualistic lying, or are your lies a willful intent on your part to falsely associate me with criminals who are guilty of slander?

"Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a site that allows two-sided conversations. There was nothing that I stated which the other poster wasn’t free to address or correct if my conclusions were incorrect, thereby, clearing their “good name”."

Why is defense (a cost) against false associations made by you against the people you falsely associate (with criminals who steal or criminals who commit slander) necessary?

Why does any forum member on this forum have to suffer through your false associations, spend the time and effort, the cost, of defending themselves from your attacks, as you falsely associate your targets with thieves and slanderers?

Who is responsible, and who is to be held accountable, for this introduction of false associations done by you - exactly?

Next you speak of confessions of ambiguous sins. I won't quote all that, since it is of a general nature. How about a specific admission on your part that you have falsely associated one target of yours with thieves that you called socialists, and now, again, you falsely associate me with a nebulous crime of slander. How about confessing the fact that you have done those things, with or without your free will involved? How about admitting what you already have admitted to doing, since it is black and white text on a web page, and you can't actually cover it up, since it is exactly what it is, in fact, so why not fess up instead of misdirecting focus being focused on your false associations of your targets with criminals and slanderers?

"If you want an example of someone who..."

I'm gutting that off at that point, and I can suggest that it is easy to find out what I want or what I don't want, and you don't need to pull the accurate answer out of a hat, and you don't need to have your Man of Straw answer for me.

I want to know if you willfully falsely associated one person on this forum with criminals who you call socialists, since that is what you actually did, and so now I want to know if you were willfully doing what you actually did, or not.

That is what I want to know.

Now I also want to know if you willfully falsely associated me with some nebulous slanderers, whatever that means, since I have not used the word, as you claim I did, and so I want to know if you did so willfully or not.

Did you willfully do the following?

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is what I want to know, as I want to know if you willfully wrote that sentence knowing what you were doing, which was to falsely associate me with the crime of slander - so did you or did you not make that false association willfully - please?

I am being kind, and I mean please, as in please help me know the truth about what you did in fact.

You then confess things not of interest to me in this specific case. I can offer back a confession, despite my focus of attention not wanting to be misdirected in this way, but the fact that I think that my life is a constant battle between good and bad inside me, where I am constantly judging my own actions, as good, and as bad, based upon my own desperate need to know better, may clear up anything you may think I think as if your source of what I think continues to be the Man of Straw that you construct out of thin air.

Your Man of Straw may have said something about slander. I did not.

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

That is false.

"But I can assure you that my motives are never malicious...if I say something it is because it is what I truly believe or interpret and my perceptions are not always right...this I readily admit."

Falsely associating me with the word slanderous can easily be perceived by me as being a malicious personal attack.

Example:

"Your words toward me were every bit as unkind and slanderous as you claim mine to be."

I can easily perceive that personal attack, that false association of me with some nebulous claim of slander, as a malicious attack upon me.

It is malicious in that sense.

So why do it?

"I am overly hostile to “socialist” thinking because I believe it is an evil system, that although can sound good in theory, never achieves it’s stated goal of economic equality."

I have to go. I can say that the above sentence is meaningless, as it supposedly places responsibility, and thereby accountability, for crimes of some nebulous nature, upon a "system", which is patently absurd. If you are capable of that type of thinking then you are as capable of willfully targeting innocent people and then falsely associating your targets with slander.

I would like to continue my defense against this false association being made by you upon me, but I have other costs to pay at this time.

Someone eventually does have to produce something of value.

Joe

Denise B's picture

The

definition of slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.

Did you, or did you not accuse me of willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals? That, to me would constitute slander of me because quite simply it is false, and slander, by it's very nature, is unkind. Are you actually claiming that you know what my intent was? and how is that possible when you don't know me at all.

How does it not occur to you that it is possible for someone to misunderstand what is being said by another without there being a grand plan of defamation behind it all?

If you actually read my first comment you would see that it says "that sounds like socialistic thinking to me" (not a declarative statement that the poster was a socialist) and then I go on to make statements to clarify why I thought that and ask questions to better understand what the poster was getting at. And not everyone that thinks socialism is a good idea falls into the category of a criminal. There are plenty of people that think it is a good idea, but are simply misguided or just don't fully understand it. Not everyone is as smart as you are Josf.

By the way, if you read my full conversation with the poster you will see that my comments and questions were patiently and politely answered by the poster and he/she never once accused me of having some grand scheme to discredit or defame anybody. In fact, I think we came to a better understanding of each other and I find the poster to be a quite pleasant person indeed.

I really have nothing else to add to this discussion Josf that hasn't already been said...

Quotes

"Did you, or did you not accuse me of willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

The use of quotes is helpful in any case of this type.

I choose my words with care. What did I actually write?

"That, to me would constitute slander of me because quite simply it is false, and slander, by it's very nature, is unkind."

So why not ask, instead of accuse?

You wrote:

"Your thinking sounds like socialism on a heavy dose of steroids and the scenario you envision would be impossible to achieve in the real world."

You just now wrote:

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Later you wrote:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

You just now wrote:

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Fellow forum member = socialist

Fellow forum member = Obama

What logically follows?

Fellow forum member = terrorist?

"willfully and intentionally creating a false argument (Strawman argument) with the sole intent of discrediting a forum member by falsely associating them with criminals?"

Did you?

I'm asking.

"Are you actually claiming that you know what my intent was?"

If I did, then you can quote the words I published where I made this claim, and if you can quote such words then I can apologize for making such a claim without first asking for clarification.

What are the facts?

"Are you actually claiming that you know what my intent was? and how is that possible when you don't know me at all."

I am not, if I did I was wrong, I don't think that I did, I may have slipped up, and that is why I often use quotes, so that I do not slip up, and again, if I did, then I was wrong because I can't know, unless I trust you for your word, concerning any willful intent you may intend to willfully employ.

I make it a point to ask.

"How does it not occur to you that it is possible for someone to misunderstand what is being said by another without there being a grand plan of defamation behind it all?"

What are you now claiming to be something that does not occur to me - exactly?

Why don't you ask me if I do or if I do not think anything? Why do you now claim that something does not occur to me?

The fact is that your words placed an innocent forum member in very close association to criminals. You did that here:

"Your thinking sounds like socialism on a heavy dose of steroids and the scenario you envision would be impossible to achieve in the real world."

and here:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

There are more examples, in your published response to what that fellow forum member had to offer - as he offered generously.

No good deed goes unpunished?

Note the question mark.

"If you actually read my first comment..."

Now you are constructing a person that did not read your first comment. Where is this person that did not read your first comment?

Are you intending to place my name on this phantom person that did not read your first comment?

Note the question mark.

Exhibit XYZ:

"How does it not occur to you that it is possible for someone to misunderstand what is being said by another without there being a grand plan of defamation behind it all?"

That sounds to me like a Straw Man argument whereby the liar creates a "conspiracy theorist" who is ever ready to display his malignity in creating a conspiracy behind every shadow, so I'm asking, is it your intent to discredit me by painting me up as a nutcase?

Note the question mark?

"And not everyone that thinks socialism is a good idea falls into the category of a criminal."

In your own words you moved the fellow forum member and his good standing in this on-line community very close, much too close for me, to a Mr. Obama (if that is his real name) who is every bit the poster boy for the greater, not the lesser, evil, so why did you do that?

I'm asking.

"There are plenty of people that think it is a good idea, but are simply misguided or just don't fully understand it."

If you can offer up a working definition of what exactly you mean when you use the term socialism, then we can both be as smart as you are about your definition of that word. I have a very good working definition of socialism first published in 1848. We can compare notes. If I have moved from being less smart to being even slightly smarter is it by comparing notes.

"accused me of having some grand scheme to discredit or defame anybody."

"grand scheme" are words chosen by you to accomplish what goal?

Me = "grand scheme"

What is the point?

What you did was you brought a fellow forum poster very close to, in very close association to, as in guilt by association, to criminals that you call socialists, and even worse.

Your target = Obama

Why did you do that?

This:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

You did that, and the target of that let it go, which proves again that your target did not deserve your targeting and pulling the trigger on this:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

Nice work.

Why did you do that - exactly?

"I really have nothing else to add to this discussion Josf that hasn't already been said..."

That is a tactic called The Parthian Arrow or Parthian Shot.

I don't think that the following qualifies as a discussion:

"Your "address the inequality issues" statement sounds like a line right out of one of Obama's speeches."

I don't think that the attachment of "grand schemes" to me qualifies as a discussion either.

What is exemplified by the exchange between you and your target is exactly the kind of proof that proves that people are not bad, as a rule, since good people can triumph over people who either choose to behave badly or are as yet unaware of the full measure of their bad behavior.

Joe

Denise B's picture

Hi Josf,

I’ve been thinking a lot about your comments to me regarding my response to tamckissick, and I want to say that you were correct. My response constituted “bad behavior” on my part because I did not fully read what he was proposing and jumped to conclusions about the type of system he was referring to, and as a result unfairly equated him with an unsavory philosophy and the criminal who currently resides in the White House. Pride is often a terrible and destructive trait, especially when it keeps us from admitting our mistakes and in this case, I was guilty of it. I do assure you; however, I did not intentionally create a false association with the purpose of discrediting this person. I did; however, form an opinion and post my response to it without fully understanding what he was actually talking about.

I want to thank you for your brutal honesty, it will help me to think more carefully about how I respond to other people in the future. To the extent that my prideful comments offended you as well, please accept my sincere apology.

Thanks

I've been brutally honest (so called) for about 5 decades. My own brother told me that I was honest to a fault.

I have trouble understanding such things, so I am driven to ask questions and offer my viewpoint.

You are one in a million (in my experience) if you can see past the external POWER that modifies our behavior, conditions our responses, and washes our brains.

I would accept your apology if I could understand it, since you were not willfully setting about to injure anyone, then that falls under accidents will happen, or crimes of passion, etc.

If it happens again, and again, and again, then the external POWER goes deeper, or the person apologizing is willfully lying - or something at work that I am not privileged to know.

I can accept the apology as a vote of confidence, so to speak, to go ahead and continue being honest - and I can even work at being less brutal (so named).

Thanks - mucho- it means a lot to me to read your words.

Hope is a bright light.

Joe

Denise B's picture

It means

a lot to me that you accept my apology...thank you :)

Surprise!

And with this comment, you have PROVEN that the majority of people are basically good. The reason is that if reversed, no one would endure such a discussion to falsify their position and follow that up with a confession of being wrong, just to gain the edge in the conversation.

In other words, you did some soul searching and realized that your soul would feel better doing good than getting away with bad. I realize this is sort of stretching what happened, but it certainly is the same principle. (Important note: In saying this, I'm not personally agreeing that you were bad initially. I'm just summarizing your latest comment.)

It is this overall reason that I believe that by removing the 'bad' incentives in the world and the game shifting effects of scarcity... If those were gone, I truly believe that we could easily 'encourage' social corrections significant enough to fix everything.

All is not lost, my friend. And you are one light that clearly shows this to be true. Thnx for that.

Todd

Jumping in

tamckisick,

I see an exceptionally rare viewpoint in your words as the concept of a power struggle appears to be communicated in those words.

So I offer:

If anyone cares to do a little math, not much, just a little, then all someone has to do is to add up all Mortgage Interest and all Federal Tax Liabilities in this country since 1913.

Very rough math can do the job of communicating the Power Struggle Concept.

Example:

There is room for over 1 full generation since 1913 and so rounding off to only 1 generation of people is rounding down from an extreme amount of POWER flowing from those people in that generation to the so called Federal Government, through Mortgage Interest and Federal Tax Liabilities.

There are about 250 million people in this country now, so a very rough number for the number of people taking out a mortgage is 100 million people, and those are the tax payers represented roughly in this rough estimate.

It can be said that inflation is relative so a home price in 1913 is the same as a home price now, adjusted for relative inflation, and therefore the 100 thousand dollar home can be used as a rough estimate too, to make things simple.

There is a very long list of various Federal Taxes so 25 percent of total productivity or total "income" (so named) can be used and a base average income per person could be divided by that 25 percent for their entire life time. Since a home is a major purchase the doubling of that home COST (mortgage price) could be the entire sum of a persons "income" for one lifetime.

Mortgage Interest amounts to at least 2 entire homes being purchased by each person taking out a mortgage, as the mortgagor buys one actual home and the price of one home is paid to the mortgagee, which is ultimately The Federal Reserve Central Bank where the money is created, and they loan it out for free (something for nothing: so called).

So the numbers to work with (and made more precise if needed) are:

100 million people each with a mortgage of 200 thousand dollars to buy one home each, where 100 thousand dollars pays for each home and 100 thousand dollars is transferred to the Central Banks, or the Federal Government POWER.

If each person can afford to pay 200 thousand for a home then their total income during that lifespan, if doubled, is 400 thousand dollars or roughly twice the major purchase of a home, and 25% of that is another 100 thousand dollars flowing to the Federal Government (criminals) through the Extortion Racket known as the IRS.

This is one generation or the time period between 1913 and today - very roughly.

#People
100,000,000 One Hundred Million
Mortgage interest flowing from productive people to Frauds as Mortgage
100,000 One Hundred Thousand
Income Tax Extortion Payments flowing to the same Cabal
100,000 One Hundred Thousand

One Hundred Million times Two Hundred Thousand is what?

That number, that total, is the same number as an individual person can see as an individual person is a part of the whole, an individual person can know a true individual number when they sign their Federal Income Tax form, they know their individual part of the whole, and their Home Mortgage Contract signed adds to their individual part of the whole, and they can see their hard earned earnings flowing from their control to the control of people that are nowhere in sight, but then collectively adding up each fellow citizen (victim), as each individual in this country does the same thing, at least each "tax payer", if we are speaking about productive people who produce something worth stealing, adds to the total, which is a very large total POWER transfer since 1913.

What is that collective number of total POWER flowing from those who earn it as that POWER flows to those who steal it? As everyone knows, this is no longer hidden, everyone knows somewhere in their conscience, that the people who steal this POWER use the stolen POWER to steal more, as in:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

What is that number that constitutes our providing the means by which we suffer ROUGHLY?

100,000,000 Victims of fraud and extortion for one lifetime
$200,000.00 Federal Reserve Note Legal Purchasing Power Units

I have found the easiest way to arrive at the accurate number is to merely add the zeros and keep the 2 a the start, and note this is exactly what the Federal Reserve Criminals do: add zeros.

13 zeros.

0000000000000

000,000,000,000,0

Add the cents at the end and the 2 at the beginning:

$20,000,000,000,000.00

The concept that I hear in your words is the same concept I intend to convey with English and Math above, and it to me is a Power Struggle.

If that much POWER was not stolen, since 1913, then each individual victim could have easily wasted that money on gambling, or lap dances, or beer, or heaven forbid that they would have invested that money in ways to keep the criminals from making crime pay so well, instead of what was done with that money, that power, as that power went the way it did go since 1913, which includes the financing of 2 World Wars, and a third World War on the way, and many very destructive Wars in between.

Example:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Where did all that POWER go, someone did want to know, and so the subject was studied in great detail.

That POWER buys things, they do not steal the power to then do nothing with the power.

The point I think you are pointing out, is that the POWER exists, and since the POWER does exist, it may be a good idea to use that POWER productively, not destructively.

Here are 4 books aimed at you (if you care to read them):

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fr...

http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Expeditio...

http://www.amazon.com/Sane-Society-Erich-Fromm/dp/0805014020

http://www.amazon.com/The-Global-Brain-Innovating-Networked/...

Two more links to show how more than just a few people have figured out how to get past the criminals running the criminal governments:

http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-calif...

Competition can be illustrated as Chaos or Choices or Ectropy or Liberty or Anarchy or those examples of competition above and Monopoly can be illustrated with the math problem above (13 zeros) or Entropy or Legal Crime or slavery or even miserable death when Monopoly narrows down to only ONE thought and ONE action shared by all.

Joe

You're catching on

Your math is correct in its direction but you could have gone much farther, if time permitted. I'll take a macro viewpoint here just to give you an idea of how big the picture gets.

An average household (the smallest unit that can be independent) has a lifespan of 40 years of working years and some number of retirement years. In those working years, the average salary is $40k so that comes to a $1.6M lifetime income. Where does that money go?

Off the top, 25% goes to the government in some form or another.

Of the take-home, 25% (20% of the original) goes directly to banks. A typical $100k mortgage costs $260k to pay off unless the mortgage is transferred to a different home or the loan is refinanced. Then it goes up farther.

Another 20% (of gross) goes to insurances. On average, we spend $450k in lifetime total insurances and we only get $28k in claims benefits. Including 'emergency' things like fire and medical, 1/20th of us has an average expense of $80k, so that averages another $4k.

Another 15-20% goes to inefficiency, waste, planned obsolescence, impulse decisions and misinformation.

So all total, we spend as much as 80% on things that don't benefit us. This means we "could" have an identical life on just 20-25% of current wages. We just would need it early in life (before we earned it) so we could avoid interest, late charges and insurance premiums. Sounds utopian, and not in a totally good way, doesn't it? Well, to approach that goal, we must look at what needs to change for it to happen.

Side bar: Your last link was wonderful in its futuristic info. The other links had either 'competing currency' or 'more of what's wrong' themes, but this one had a link on the Utopias menu which led to another article that I found very interesting. Here's the link:
http://utopianist.com/2012/04/if-technological-progress-cont...

This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ.

Following from the above discussion, we definitely can fix this problem when we see all that 'income' wasted in the system. We just need to channel it down the right path. What I've been suggesting is to first eliminate as much of that waste as possible (at the business), then offer products that make it easier and cheaper to eliminate the waste at the personal level. Then take those profits and increase wages and then encourage shorter careers (aka earlier retirements). The details are much deeper but I'm sure you're getting the concept that we're both keeping our "power" and sharing the wealth by not earning quite so much overall, even though our purchasing power will quadruple.

Regarding your actual numbers, here are the ones I came up with for my research a couple years ago. 107M families. $117k average home price. 265% average 'traditional' payoff per mortgage. So the "waste" or stolen portion in just your data ($20.6T) tops your total spent (now up to $33.1T) for homes. This amounts to 2.2 years of our GDP and still doesn't even count inflation or any other bank derived expenses in life.

Trying despreately to avoid furher confusion

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

People often confuse crime with socialism and I prefer not to do so myself. I take it as a form of crime for me, or any innocent person, to be misidentified as a criminal when anyone falsely associates crime with anything other than crime.

Since this TOPIC is about Fundamental Differences between us, I am going to reinforce this understanding of desperately avoiding confusion as to who are the criminals and who are the victims.

Involuntary associations are criminal associations exactly as determined by the full measure of involuntary servitude, as if saying "Had I known, I would not have proceeded down that path of involuntary servitude."

Anyone calling crime by any other name, call it socialism, call it taxation, call it capitalism, the fact is that the fundamental difference is that the word used is false by exactly how much the victims are then powerless to know better as to the actual full accurate measure of the connection being made between the criminals and the victims.

As to your title "You're catching on", I'd like to distance myself from a concept of not having already "caught on" before today, in case that is what you intend to suggest, or in case someone else reading this is thereby led to believe, that suddenly, now, I am "catching on" as if before I was not "catching on" until this moment.

Where I've been "catching on" 20 years ago, is exactly what is was when it happened, even if you have no concept of it.

I can safely assume that you are meaning that that I am "catching on" to your specific point of view, which I thought I had already confessed in many words that can be quoted. In other words: your viewpoint expressed in English, and now math, is a familiar viewpoint to me, because I share it, which means, in other words, I am not suddenly "catching on" to your viewpoint. I share it, where your viewpoint is agreeable to my sense of accurate measure. I certainly do not "catch on" where your viewpoint, in my opinion, does not measure up.

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

I can assume, which is risky, that you are targeting those words with the Web Page: "where we differ" and not me. If you are moving me closer to criminals (that may be called socialists in this case) then please stop.

I do not appreciate false association where I am moved closer to criminals in any way other than the ways that are accurately measurable, such as the transfers of power (under duress) from me, as I earn that power, to those who steal it, and then that stolen power is used to steal more, in ways that can be called socialism, or capitalism, or government, or whatever cover story works to cover crime these days.

"This short one addresses the fact that tech advancement should lead us toward utopia but for it to happen, we need to go all socialist to fix unemployment. That is where we differ."

I've been called many names, paranoid, brutally honest, honest to fault, etc., but precision in communication, to me, is a missing element in our human condition, and therefore worthy of the work required to turn that trend around to be something better than abject belief in falsehood without question.

I may go overboard, admittedly, the sinner that I am, the human who is very capable of error as I continue to be, despite effort to the contrary.

Which is better to err on the side of Liberty or to err on the side of abject belief in falsehood without question?

I think Liberty is better.

I don't want to be placed in the same cage as the criminals, ever, even if those criminals call themselves socialists, capitalists, or Central Bankers.

I don't want to be placed in the same cage literally or figuratively.

I really don't want to be a part of the whole mess - in any way.

Under duress, and without prejudice, are phrases that I am just now "catching on", if I can offer that as a confession of past failure to know best. I have been working for some time at knowing better.

"So all total, we spend as much as 80% on things that don't benefit us."

I'm busting in there to agree with the more precise measure of how much of productive power produced by productive people is then used "on things that don't benefit" those who produce it.

I'm busting in here to add that the stolen power is used, in very accurately measurable ways, to steal more, which is a whole different math problem compared to having power merely wasted.

I'm also busting in here to add to the already understood concept of how the NEWS is even worse still, because the positive side can be compared to the negative side, on both sides of the NULL VOID in the center.

Power used to make more POWER (Positive Side)
Power stolen and wasted (NULL VOID in the center)
Power stolen and used to steal more (That which your measure offers more precision than my rough estimates with 13 zeros)

It is not unrealistic to consider a possible NOW where "we" are colonizing Mars at this moment, or vacationing on Mars for 6 months this summer, had 1788 not been the year of Crime Made Legal, and instead had We The People avoided the "providing the means by which we suffer" routine, and instead of having all that power stolen (since 1788): instead we used that power to make more power for us.

1. Power making more Power does what?

2. Power consumed doing nothing does what?

3. Power consumed in the work required to steal Power does what?

"So all total, we spend as much as 80% on things that don't benefit us."

I jumped in at that point, barging in, to offer a measure of "benefit us" as a function of power used to make more power and what would stop the total sum of power reaching a point where human beings colonize Mars, Moon, and even build Space Stations for fun, or just in case one might be handy?

There is Helium 3 on the moon. Is that a good source of Power?

http://voices.yahoo.com/helium3-2064587.html

"I'm sure you're getting the concept that we're both keeping our "power" and sharing the wealth by not earning quite so much overall, even though our purchasing power will quadruple."

I think quadruple is merely a function of time once power is no longer used to destroy productive capacity. Why would there be a limit on power production?

Your numbers are better, it is good to see people doing good things.

Joe

You are right

It's not as simple as saying this person is good or this person is bad. Our actions are complex and often are a mix of a myriad of motives. However, my point in my post was to get to the fundamental nature of mankind. I think my point is still valid; people are basically bad. Our nature and tendency's are corrupt. Just because, as you correctly point out, we have the capacity to do good, and our actions are often '50 shades of gray', doesn't mean that we still are not bad in our nature. Just because a diseased apple tree can produce some good apples doesn't mean it isn't diseased and dying.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Confessions of bad people.

"I think my point is still valid; people are basically bad. Our nature and tendency's are corrupt."

When someone confesses evil, often is the case where the confession is hidden behind a false front.

I think this lie, above, proves the point.

The claim that someone is seeking this or that can be proven over time, as a true claim, I want this, and then that person finds it.

Saying I want this, but in an example where someone has this in front of them, but refuses to get this, for example, is a confession.

Example:

"Until we begin to engage on the foundational issues, we will never make progress in spreading liberty. We can debate facts, we can get emotional, but the most profitable thing we can do is get people to talk about the fundamental differences between us. What do you think?"

When a claim as such above is made, then the claimant can prove the point through direct action.

The claimant claims that men are bad.

I can show otherwise.

I offered to leave me out, and to work an angle whereby someone else shows otherwise, so as to avoid me being the subject of scrutiny.

People who claim that men are bad, it seems to prove out, over time, are those who are bad, so that makes sense, a bad person, with bad thoughts, and bad actions, claims that everyone is bad, proving the point by example.

Example (repeated):

http://www.amazon.com/The-Prince-Machiavelli/dp/0788191594

Taken from the forward of my copy:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

The might makes right lie takes many forms, as proven over time, in each case, the liar says that lies are necessary, everyone does it, so we had better do it first, to stay one step ahead of all the bad people, like me.

So the claim is to...

Quotes:

"Until we begin to engage on the foundational issues, we will never make progress in spreading liberty. We can debate facts, we can get emotional, but the most profitable thing we can do is get people to talk about the fundamental differences between us. What do you think?"

I think you are thinking in terms of Might making Right, or doing unto others before others have a chance to do unto you, or any other excuse, rationalization, apology, lie, fraud, false flag, cover story, used by any criminal human being who has ever willfully perpetrated a crime while massaging their own ego.

The fundamental principle is provable.

Liars lie.

That does not mean that everyone willfully lies, or that everyone is incapable of confessing when they have lied, so as to set the record strait, and in that way afford any future victims advance warning based upon past behavior.

If the person were truly aiming to find the fundamental differences between us, they could, without too much willful resort to deception.

Joe

You are terribly difficult to understand

But again, I will try. I've never said that people can't do good. Of course they can. My basic premise is that people are basically bad. It's like entropy. Things tend toward disorder, not order. Things tend toward chaos, not harmony. Our nature tends toward doing that which most call bad. It's plain and simple. Read the news, you see it. Look at history, you see it. Read this forum; it's there. We can do good, we can do great. But our 'drift' is not towards good. My proof is the history of the human race. I offer that as evidence and I rest my case.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Your individual case is rested.

Do you know about ectropy?

If you are unaware, as other people appear to also be communicating to you, of other viewpoints, then your case is rested, in your own words.

As far as you are concerned men, meaning you, are bad.

I get that, I see that, and it is not my exclusive viewpoint to be able to see how your case is rested in the way you rest your case, since you rest your case in that way.

Men are bad, mankind is bad, in your own words "our 'drift' is not towards good", as YOU see it, so either YOU are "we", since it is YOUR exclusive perspective, or YOU are not "we", which is common among bad people.

Bad people say things like "men are bad", and therefore it takes me, a good person, to FILL IN THE BLANK, so as to save them bad people from themselves.

Bad people say things like "men are bad" so I am thereby excused for what I have done, what I am doing, and what I will do, since "men are bad", like me, for example, see, see how bad man are, see here, look at me.

I rest my case.

If the idea is to measure exactly how bad YOU are, then rest that case.

If the idea is to measure exactly how bad the person closest to you is, rest that case.

If the idea is to measure exactly how bad the person next closest to you is, rest that case.

Now you have 3 measures, add them up, exactly as bad as all 3 are, and rest that case.

If you want me to watch the news, and that will tell me exactly how bad men are, then I can do that, while I watch the news that is accurate, not false, and there is whole lot of good to see, if for no other reason than this:

“It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” –Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775

So, supposing, a wild thing happened, and you heard what I just offered to you as my viewpoint, and suppose that you heed what I write to you, a wild thing, not likely to happen in a million years, since your case is all rested as you say, but suppose you measured your bad or goodness, and the next two people near you, you measure them up for good and bad too, and now you have 3 examples to compare.

Which one of those 3 are better or worse?

You.

The person right next to you.

The next closest person next to you.

3 to compare in the free market of bad people.

Add 3 more to the competition of who is exemplifying better or worse, adding or subtracting to total bad or goodness as such:

1.
Patrick Henry
2.
Jesus (or someone similarly known to be not as bad as most)
3.
Alexander Hamilton

Now, instead of lumping all of us into one pot, where we are all as bad as you and Alexander Hamilton, and those 2 people closest to you, not all of us are as bad as your lot, and "we" are not guilty of all the bad that your lot does, is there a possibility of you seeing, for once, that you aught to take responsibility for what happens, good or bad, provide for the bad, and work toward good?

If so, then what explains the decisions made by the individuals who are accountable for most of the bad things that happen?

Perhaps they have been reading The Prince, and taking that to be a recipe for "providing for" the case they are resting.

Joe

We see the world differently

and that's ok. The validity of my premise does not hang on the sum of personal examples I can come up with. Furthermore, if something is true, it is true for all, not subjective. You can debate my premise; 'all men are bad'. You can disagree, but it's bit flippant to say, "well that's true for you but not for me." In fact, it's a logical fallacy, one of composition. Just because something may be true for part, doesn't mean it's true for all. Meaning, just because you can do some good, or you look good compared to others, does not mean that the entire human race is good. An example of this follows:
1) Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
2) Humans are made up of human cells.
3) Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.

Obviously this is false. But this is essentially what you have done. Perhaps this shows me that I should clarify my premise to something like this: "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."

I do not think it's the premise you are arguing against, but the conclusion. As Aristotle taught us, any logical argument can be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. I have offered just one premise, you have rightly figured out the second, and I believe you object to the conclusion.

In saying "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature." You must also say "I am a human" (which is the 2nd premise). The conclusion is this: "I am corrupt in my nature." This seems to be a place you are unwilling to go. And I respect your opinion.

I suppose I would rather talk about the first premise though and not jump ahead to the conclusion. Your arguments against my conclusion do not prove it false. Not all people are as bad as they could be, this is true. Not all people manifest external behavior that society asserts is bad, this is true. People still do good things, this is true. All these objections to my premise and more can still be true and my premise still stand. Again, the fallacy you are falling into is that of Affirming a disjunct;
A or B
A
Therefore, it is not the case that B.

Or to put it in our terms:
Man is inherently good or bad
Man can do good
Therefore, it is not the case that man is inherently bad

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

Please stop.

If the idea is to reach the goal claimed in the opening topic essay then having you speak for me will not work to get to the goal.

"well that's true for you but not for me."

So who said those words?

Who is targeting who to paint who as someone who is flippant?

"In fact, it's a logical fallacy, one of composition."

If you are still speaking to your creation of fantasy, then how does that involve me?

Who said the words that you published as such:

"well that's true for you but not for me."

You place those words that you publish in quotes: why?

Who wrote those words that are now flippant, and as you claim those words are a logical fallacy, and those words that you publish are as you say, "one of composition".

Note how I quote your words that you publish, and those words that you publish are words that I can cut and past from your published words, and I don't have to make those words up that you publish, since you published those words, not me.

Then you go on an continue your argument with your Straw Man based upon what your Straw Man says, according to you, so how does that have anything to do with me, or what I offer as a competitive perspective?

"Obviously this is false. But this is essentially what you have done."

What you have done, in fact, without the qualifier of "essentially" is that you have constructed a phrase, of your own construction, you pin those words supposedly on me, and the words you create for your Straw Man to speak, are stupid words, words you create, and then as if by magic you defeat the stupid words you publish and claim that you are defeating me.

I am not arguing, so the documented facts of what you do are only that, and the documented facts of what I do are only that, and you are the one making false claims about how your words are somehow attributable to me, which they are not, so why are you doing that, and here is a simple question that you can dodge.

Why are you making up words that you publish and then why are you attributing your words to me as if I had said the words that you are now publishing?

Why are your falsifying the facts as they are documented, and easy to check, right here on this forum?

You argue with your Man of Straw as if I am somehow involved in your argument with your Man of Straw, so what is the point in doing that all alone in whatever argument you are constructing; how does that, in any way, involve me?

_______________________________________
Perhaps this shows me that I should clarify my premise to something like this: "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."
_______________________________________

What happened to cause you to arrive at that insight? I am curious since I had nothing to do with your argument with your Straw Man. Was it your argument with your Straw Man that led you to believe that you need to change your story?

Now your story is improved?

"I do not think it's the premise you are arguing against, but the conclusion."

I am not arguing. I don't argue. I see no point in it. I am reporting. I offer an accurate, measurable, perspective for competitive review in discussion. If you need someone to argue with, then it makes sense that you may then create Men of Straw, but what does that have to do with me?

This is demonstrably false:

"all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."

There is no argument, it is merely false. The use of the absolute qualifier automatically makes the statement false, as there are many human beings, whereby the human being exists an entire life time without ever acting in any way that can be measured as being corrupt.

The false construction of words that you have constructed goes on to move from an absolute measure ("all") into subjective nonsense with the two words "inherently corrupt" as if such a combination of words could ever be known in any way by anyone at any time, when in fact any effort to do so, to know what those two words mean, require an individuals subjective opinion, which can change from one minute to the next, to measure the meaning of those two words, and therefore the sentence is not only false (for the false claim of applying the claim to "all") it is not only false, it is ambiguous to a point of meaninglessness.

Then you go even further into subjective nonsense whereby "all humans" (according to you exclusively) are such and such (nonsense) "by their nature".

What is "by their nature" supposed to mean, other than what you say it means right now, and subject to change into some opposite meaning a minute from now?

"As Aristotle taught us, any logical argument can be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. I have offered just one premise, you have rightly figured out the second, and I believe you object to the conclusion."

Aristotle taught you something? That is news. So someone taught you how to argue, and now you think I should join in on the argument?

I don't think in terms of arguments, what is the point?

I think in terms of a competition of perspectives whereby the more accurate perspective is preferable, better, than the less accurate perspective in specific ways that can be accurately measured.

If you want ot argue, then that may explain why you keep creating a Man of Straw to argue with, but what does that have to do with me?

Your latest sentence is patently absurd.

If there is an accurate perspective that you can offer up for competitive review in a discussion, so as to then find the basic differences between your perspective an an competitive perspective, then you could do so, and you could do so without making up absurd statements that are measurably false, and you could do so by avoiding the continued resort to fabricating an imaginary opponent in a argument that you are having with that Man of Straw of your own construction.

"In saying "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature." You must also say "I am a human" (which is the 2nd premise)."

You can say anything you want, but your words are measurably false, and of no interest to me, other than to defend myself against your claims that I have anything to do with your argument that you are having with your imaginary opponent.

All human beings are on the planet Earth. That is measurable.

All human beings are...

What?

You say, as if it were true, that all human beings are inherently...

Human being A dies before the age of 1.

That is a human being, never reaching the age of 2, and therefore the claim applies to that human being, since that human being is within the set of "all" human beings.

What was "in" that human being, something that is in all human beings inherently?

All human beings are inherently corrupt.

How is this baseless, ambiguous, meaningless, sentence, in any way measurable?

Your claim goes on well beyond patent absurdity by adding even further subjective nonsense as all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.

What do you mean, exactly, are you speaking about genetic code? What is the purpose of publishing ambiguous nonsense? Do you seek a method by which an argument can perpetuate forever?

Why go even further past the creation of nonsense by claiming that your nonsense is in some way factual?

When you do so, when you claim that your nonsense if factual, then you set yourself up to the challenge of providing proof of the claim that all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.

Since there are no facts to prove, in your production of nonsense, then there can be no proof, so why claim that your nonsense if factual?

"This seems to be a place you are unwilling to go. And I respect your opinion."

The use of the word "are" as if there is no room for doubt, as if the claim you make is factual, and therefore your claim, which can't possibly be factual, is proven, self-evidently proven, to be nonsense. Then you claim that for some reason someone, a strange entity consisting of vapor, a ghost, a phantom, is not "willing to go" into your fantasy world where all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.

And then you respect the opinion of your Man of Straw, but your Man of Straw, who you claim is not going somewhere, is called "you" and you respect "your" opinion when you speak to your Man of Straw.

How does that have anything to do with me?

"I suppose I would rather talk about the first premise though and not jump ahead to the conclusion."

Are you speaking to your Man of Straw?

"Your arguments against my conclusion do not prove it false."

I don't argue. What would be the point? If you invent a sentence, then the sentence can be discussed, if that is the idea, to discuss a sentence that you invent.

You invented a sentence. I can discuss that sentence. I can "go there" as you say. If you want someone to follow you into your fantasy world where all human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature, then that sounds like an argument you are constructing with someone who has an interest in arguments. I don't have that interest.

I have an interest in finding the fundamental differences between one perspective and another perspective based upon the concept of accuracy; whereby the more accurate perspective is fundamentally better.

A good perspective is an accurate perspective.

A bad perspective is exemplified by many competitively bad sentences.

Here is one competitively bad sentence (due to the lack of any way of measuring it):

All human beings are inherently corrupt by their nature.

If there were a way to measure that claim, in that sentence, then that sentence could move up the accurate (good) scale.

At the moment, as far as I can tell, that sentence is a complete fabrication of nonsense.

"Not all people are as bad as they could be, this is true."

If you ever get done having an argument with your Man of Straw, you might begin offering a competitive perspective by constructing an arrangement of English words that can convey an accurate perspective - I suppose.

What can obviously happen is a point at which there will be no point in continuing the effort to discuss the topic (the law of diminishing returns steps in): too much cost and no benefit.

"Not all people manifest external behavior that society asserts is bad, this is true."

How can that be true? "Society" cannot assert anything. Individual people can assert something. Do you mean to suggest that there is a responsible entity called "society" whereby "it" can assert something, as if "society" can be responsible, and "society" can be held to account?

If so then there is another patently absurd sentence backed up by a patently absurd claim of truth.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that "society" is a list of people, then who is on that list, if they belong on that list, and who is not on that list, if they do not belong on that list, and do you mean everyone is on that list as in "all humans are inherently corrupt in their nature."?

Do you mean to equate "all humans" with "society" as if one is the same list of people as the other list, or are there exceptions in "society" which are people who are not on the list in "all humans"?

"People still do good things, this is true."

If you can measure it, then we both can know that it is true, according to your measure of how true it is, and then another person could conceivably add to the list of people who claim that same "truth".

"All these objections to my premise and more can still be true and my premise still stand."

Returning back to your argument with your Man of Straw can easily find anything conceivable in your mind - exclusively - but that has nothing to do with a discussion on the topic as far as I am concerned.

___________________________________
Again, the fallacy you are falling into is that of Affirming a disjunct;
A or B
A
Therefore, it is not the case that B.
____________________________________

You have little in the way of knowing what I think, let alone what I am falling into, but you are intimately aware of exactly what your Man of Straw may or may not do at any given moment.

What will you have your Man of Straw do next: jump off a bridge?

___________________________
Or to put it in our terms:
Man is inherently good or bad
Man can do good
Therefore, it is not the case that man is inherently bad
___________________________

You are using the word "our" to mean what, exactly: you and your imaginary friend?

If my viewpoint is to be viewed for competitive analysis, compared with any other viewpoint, then that can be done, but to claim that your version of my viewpoint has anything to do with my viewpoint is as false as your latest creations.

If you can measure how all humans are inherently corrupt by their nature, then I can see how well that measures up as being true, not until then.

Joe

And we're done.

"I am not arguing. I don't argue."

To argue is to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view. Call it "reporting" or whatever you like. I put forward a premise, you don't agree with it, you "report facts" that argue my premise isn't true. You can play with words all day long, but it's tiring and distracting.

"Why are you making up words that you publish and then why are you attributing your words to me as if I had said the words that you are now publishing?"

Making up words? I am trying to summarize your position. As I've said before, you are very difficult to understand. You don't seem to be willing to just say what you think. I don't want to knock your style, but it's tough for me to figure out what you are trying to "report". I, as a rational being, try to internalize your arguments and understand them. I can play the 'quote' game all day with you. But I want to understand what you are saying, so I can answer properly. I believe I still correctly summarized your previous post. Let other rational beings decide if I was way off. No offence or misrepresentation was ever intended.

"There is no argument, it is merely false. The use of the absolute qualifier automatically makes the statement false, as there are many human beings, whereby the human being exists an entire life time without ever acting in any way that can be measured as being corrupt.

So you are saying that anytime you use an absolute qualifier, it makes a statement false? Do you see the absurdity of that statement? It is because it is.....absolute! You just said that all statements that use an absolute qualifier are false. But in doing, you were absolute. This is the type of logical fallacies I was speaking of in my previous post.

You have been patronizing of my ideas and my replies. Instead of actually looking at the substance of my claims you are attacking my method and launching ad hominem. Thanks for trying to engage with me but, I do not plan to respond again, it has become unprofitable. Sorry if I misrepresented any of your ideas or words, it was never my intention to attribute ideas to you that were not yours or to disrespect you.

"Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics." -Thomas Jefferson

No

"So you are saying that anytime you use an absolute qualifier, it makes a statement false?"

No.

An often repeated contradiction is repeated by you.

A.
"As I've said before, you are very difficult to understand."

B.
"I believe I still correctly summarized your previous post."

Which is it, and how can you claim that both are true?

A.
"But I want to understand what you are saying, so I can answer properly."

B.
"So you are saying that anytime you use an absolute qualifier, it makes a statement false? Do you see the absurdity of that statement?"

If you have trouble understanding any sentence written in English, you can ask, but if you ask and then you provide the answer before the answer is put before you, and if you are determined to invent the answer yourself, concluding that your answer is the answer, then you can't reasonably expect to get what you claim to want, which is to actually know what another person perceives.

"You just said that all statements that use an absolute qualifier are false."

If I did, then you could quote such a claim made by me, which you can't do, because you are the one who made that claim before you attached your claim to me.

In the words I wrote I used the word "the" to specify the subject matter of what is or is not absolute.

If you know of something that is absolute please consider reporting it, and I can do the same. I know of one thing that is absolutely true and every attempt to disprove it works to prove it instead.

Please offer an absolute fact - please.

"This is the type of logical fallacies I was speaking of in my previous post."

Yes you did, in the previous post you made something up, something I did not say, attributed what you made up to me, then argued and defeated your Man of Straw, and now you are doing it again.

If you use quotes, which you don't, you can have your own false representations of what I say in a more accurate order, rather than being in an ambiguous order, whereby the reader is left with trusting your word for what I say.

"You have been patronizing of my ideas and my replies."

I think that that qualifies, or measures up, as a subjective opinion. Your words are exactly what they are, such as your false statements, which are measurable false, and you don't even try to measure them as true, so my input is merely factual by comparison.

Now you are injecting the concept of ad hominem, so named, while you do it? You resort to claiming that what I have to offer is "patronizing" in your words. What is it called when you avoid measuring up your so called "premises" and instead you focus attention on me personally, where supposedly "I" am guilty of patronizing?

If your premises are true, then they can be measured as being true, so what is holding you back from offering the true measures?

Why do you resort instead to claiming that I am patronizing you?

Why do you resort instead to claiming that I am doing what you just did, with your ad hominem diversion from the topic to me personally?

"Thanks for trying to engage with me but, I do not plan to respond again, it has become unprofitable."

That is the Parthian Arrow, as you follow up with a claim of you being the nice guy.

"Sorry if I misrepresented any of your ideas or words, it was never my intention to attribute ideas to you that were not yours or to disrespect you."

Who did this:

"You have been patronizing of my ideas and my replies."

Was it not you?

How can you be sorry of something you just did, and then claim not to do what you just did, as if someone else did what you just did, instead of you?

If I patronized your ideas, which is a bad thing, then that could be measured - it seems to me.

What you could do, what you have done, is to read what I write, claim that you are having trouble understanding it, then claim to understand it well enough to claim that your interpretations of what I wrote "are" what I wrote, despite my objections, and then you claim that you still know what I wrote better than what I do, then you are resorting to moving the focus of attention to me, personally, then you claim that that is what I do, then you are sorry if you did do something, that you just did, then you claim that you had no intention to do what you just did in fact.

This stands as an example of how good, or accurate perception, can overcome inaccurate perception, which works well to measure up the relative goodness or badness of the human species.

Over time the costly, powerless, unproductive, and even destructive human thoughts and actions can be left behind in favor of productive things to think about and do, in time.

Joe

Ectropy

Cool! I've explained that many times but didn't know there was a word for it. It's going in my dictionary.

As I mentioned above, I think people migrate towards more wealth in an attempt to climb the social ladder. If so, we can simply view the 'drift' you refer to as an escalation of weapons.

An example:
If people fight with sticks and a group isn't doing so great, they'll invent the sword. If sword fighting doesn't yield a win, they'll invent guns, and so on. After physical weapons reach their pinnacle, the weapons will migrate toward financial and then mental maneuvers. What we're in today is the pinnacle of those. The good news is that open and instant communications via the internet is exposing them at an exponential rate. Sure, it's still a small movement, but as with any exponential growth, it appears small until right before the end.

Back on point, the 'drift' being discussed is actually not an example of entropy (toward chaos) but ectropy (migrating away from chaos). One must look at the individual stages, not the overall result.

"ectropy" is a dumb word and means nothing.

entropy on the other hand is a law. and it works and is true.
and while I am aware that it makes no sense on a cosmic scale. after all, life persists and so does energy.
the fact remains that you cannot get low pressure to flow to high pressure. bluntly stated, entropy is simply equalization. "toward chaos" is not a description of entropy.
in thermodynamics everything has to do with flow. hot will flow towards cold. energy can be thought of as an imbalance, this what electricity is. electricity can only do work when it is flowing.
I suppose if I tried to make a real word out of ectropy, it would mean the same as fuel.
and while I know that entropy is a solid gold fact. I am also aware that if it is true, then all "imbalances" should have equalized long ago.....
it was in this manner that I began to understand life... as the struggle against entropy?
peace.