Simcountry
Forum General By the will of man (Kebir Blue)

By the will of man (Kebir Blue)

Z
Zdeněk Pavlovský (Little Upsilon)
03 Apr 2009 23:44 Link
in your opinion MasterofAll or is it a scientific fact? just curious because from your posts i cannot tell whats fact and whats opinion.
M
MasterofAll
04 Apr 2009 17:50 Link
Zdenek,

That bit right there was an opinion formed off of the snippets posted by nix. Since it's an opinion, I would love for someone to prove me wrong. I enjoy learning something new. I did see something in his post about how any profits are shared between the lender and the "lendee". So that is a potential variable that would make what I said wrong. If there is a source of profit other than interest (which is forbidden under that system), what I said would be probably be wrong.

You say posts, plural, so I assume you've read by posts in the environmentalism debate thread. Reading those posts, I'm sure you noticed that I never directly quoted any articles. That is because those posts summarize the opinions I have formed based on facts I've learned by reading and listening to all angles of an issue.

The problem lies in the fact that many of the "facts" in that subject are so tangible. Ideas in that area have shifted so drastically in the past 30 years that nobody can really call a scientific article fact. There will always be people that take what others call facts and present them with "facts" to the contrary. It's difficult to say your ideas represent only facts, because someone can always use opinion or conflicting "facts" to disagree with you.

The view I present is what I consider to be the most intelligent angle on an issue. When I write my posts, I say exactly what I believe to be true, there is all ways the potential that I will be proven wrong. Suffice to say, my posts represent what I believe to be true at the time that I write them. I would love for people to agree with me, and I do consider myself to be correct on the subjects I talk about. In the environmentalism thread I consider myself to be very knowledgable about the issues I discuss.

Cementing yourself in one position is foolish. I have been trying to determine whether nix is willing to be proven wrong and learn, or whether there is no convincing him to shift his views in even I minute way. Everyone should be willing to learn, very little in life holds true under every possible range of conditions.

That last post was an opinion formed on the fly using the information presented to me, but my posts in the environmentalism thread are heavily steeped in the "facts" that I consider to be true.

Ben
N
nix001 (Fearless Blue)
04 Apr 2009 18:34 Link
Hi Ben.
'Cementing yourself in one position is foolish.'
Does that mean that there is nothing that you concider to be true? Or would stand up for/live for/die for?
Is there no fact to life?
If everyone was to sit on the fence, how would the bad things get changed?

I also if proved wrong will adapt my belief. (except the environment. I will always believe we should stop people from destroying it)
Capitalisum, according to the G20, has failed. It also failed in the 1930's.
Get burnt once you be more careful. Get burned twice you stop doing what ever you are doing thats getting you burnt.
Unfortunatly, it seems that the leaders of capitalisum don't get burnt. And when the dust clears they'll be back up to their old tricks again.

Capitalisum needs a free market.
Society needs a regulated market.
Whats more important?
Profit or society?
M
MasterofAll (Fearless Blue)
04 Apr 2009 20:07 Link
Hi Nix,

To answer your last question there, neither, capitalist society runs on profit. Without the potential for profit, our current society would collapse. People don't do much if there is no potential for them to get anything out of it. Even charitable deeds which seem like nothing but kindness benefit the person giving in a mental way. People give money to charity because it makes them feel good. People do nothing just to be nice. People do things because the see a benefit in doing it, or they just feel like they should. All of this is detailed in that book I told you to look at in another post.

Where you quoted me there, you took my comment a bit too literally, I was saying things change. You need to adapt to those changes in order to survive. That's how it is in nature and society. I have certain things that I believe to be my fundamental rights, and I would be willing to die to defend those rights. But that is only because I gain more of a psychological benefit to resisting than to just give up and die.

And nix, I agree with you about the environment! You read my first post on the environmentalism thread; the environment is getting steadily destroyed by humanity. I just feel that your solution is poorly thought out. For example, you constantly talk about how we should all grow our own food and turn back to nature. Like I said in another post of mine, farming is extremely damaging to the environment! Small scale farming is inefficient, and requires overlarge amounts of labor for the return you get. You kind of steered around that point in the environmentalism thread, so I would still like your response to that.

I understand you will never advocate the destruction of the environment, and I sure as hell don't want you to. But can't you acknowledge that the methods you propose are not the best path?

Also, in my opinion the G20 meeting is just a political gimmick that makes the voters (and the leaders themselves) feel like their leaders are doing something. In the case of the US, it just involves sucking up to your leaders to give us a better world image.

Which leader said capitalism has failed? I hadn't heard that.

You want the truth? The goverment has failed. They screwed up; miserably. Failures in the market are mostly due to poor government regulation, be it too much or too little. An example in my government (US). I'm assuming you guys over in Europe hear about Bernie Madoff. If you haven't, he was a guy who set up a 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme. The sad part, a financial analyst told one of our regulatory boards, and they ignored him! That isn't a failure of capitalism, it's a failure of government.

Unbrideled capitalism would be a disaster, I'm not denying that. But with a capable government, capitalism works great.

What I've coined "public stupidity" is the thing that is destroying the US. Most americans have no knowledge of the issues affecting their country, they don't really care either. We are losing our position in the world heirarchy because we don't focus our attention on important subjects. Some celebrity getting drunk and stripping at a party gets as much media attention as information about an important diplomatic meeting. Hell, the recent events in Georgia and Israel only made the front page of our local paper when they each started. After that they were relegated to a small article containing casualty figures in the World section. To me, the idea that you can confine all important world events onto a single page shows how much we ignore what's going on in the world.

China is pulling ahead of us because they are still in the position where they appreciate what they get. Kids here in the US get offered a great education for free and don't even take advantage of it. It's like what a person said above, "comfort breeds complacency". That is why empires rise and fall. Once your on top, most people and nations don't feel the need to keep improving on their lead. So long as they're on top, and stay there, everyones happy.

You can preach the death of capitalism all you want, but it's a good system that's here to stay. Capitalism is not at fault for these latest economic problems. Capitalism is the reason our standard of living is as high as it is today.

You seem to think it's either the environment or us, no compromises. I disagree, I choose to think our technology has allowed us to have the best of both worlds. I think that is the fundamental difference between our two viewpoints. Wouldn't you agree?

Ben
Z
Zdeněk Pavlovský (Little Upsilon)
04 Apr 2009 21:15 Link
I believe "opinion" cannot be proved wrong by definition, while a "fact" can. I was merely curious for the reasons I stated.