Poll: Zeitgeist Movement

[lionsprey]

seen all the movies and then some and i think its a nice idea but sadly not practicly possible

 

[Manji187]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

Plenty of other people have already explained why. The only way to arrive at this kind of society is to surpress all desires, ambition and innovation. In other words, turning people into mindless automatons. Someone not conforming to this way of thinking has no place in that society.

By misguided I mean being blinded by idealism and refusing to face reality because it's not what they want to see.

As for myself, I'm pretty satisfied. A lot could be different, possibly for the better. Stagnation is never good.

The only way? That's a rather sweeping statement. There is never just one way to do anything.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who is not conforming to the current paradigm (private property and capital acquisition and accumulation, work, competition, consumption) has no place in THIS society? Every society will most likely have its outcasts/ dissenters...what matters is how it treats them.

"face reality"? What/ who's reality is that? Is it by any chance unalterable as well? If so, how bloody convenient. Conformist rhetoric at its purest.

When was the last time you've seen or heard of a Persian King or a Roman Emperor or a Russian Tsar? Everything passes and nothing lasts. Neither will the current paradigm.

Also, if everyone would just "face reality" we wouldn't be here, in our comfortable homes with our fancy trinkets. Women wouldn't have rights, the African Americans would still be working at plantations and the earth would be flat with the sun spinning around it. Progress is made despite of such "realities". The current paradigm is just another reality meant to be transcended/ outgrown. Preferably without bloodshed...

 

[Nimcha]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

Plenty of other people have already explained why. The only way to arrive at this kind of society is to surpress all desires, ambition and innovation. In other words, turning people into mindless automatons. Someone not conforming to this way of thinking has no place in that society.

By misguided I mean being blinded by idealism and refusing to face reality because it's not what they want to see.

As for myself, I'm pretty satisfied. A lot could be different, possibly for the better. Stagnation is never good.

The only way? That's a rather sweeping statement. There is never just one way to do anything.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who is not conforming to the current paradigm (private property and capital acquisition and accumulation, work, competition, consumption) has no place in THIS society? Every society will most likely have its outcasts/ dissenters...what matters is how it treats them.

"face reality"? What/ who's reality is that? Is it by any chance unalterable as well? If so, how bloody convenient. Conformist rhetoric at its purest.

When was the last time you've seen or heard of a Persian King or a Roman Emperor or a Russian Tsar? Everything passes and nothing lasts. Neither will the current paradigm.

Also, if everyone would just "face reality" we wouldn't be here, in our comfortable homes with our fancy trinkets. Women wouldn't have rights, the African Americans would still be working at plantations and the earth would be flat with the sun spinning around it. Progress is made despite of such "realities". The current paradigm is just another reality meant to be transcended/ outgrown. Preferably without bloodshed...

You know what, I think I was wrong in my first post. Thanks for letting me see that.

Your movement isn't as dangerous as I thought, if your bit of arguing is anything to go by.

 

[Manji187]

You know what, I think I was wrong in my first post. Thanks for letting me see that.

Your movement isn't as dangerous as I thought, if your bit of arguing is anything to go by.

Strange. I thought you'd be more...determined in your convictions (in both senses of the word). Could this be sarcasm....or perhaps simply fatigue?

Ah..no matter.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Where's the "It sounds familar, but have no idea what it is, can some explain." poll option.

 

[TastyCarcass]

I saw the first one because it used Bill Hicks jokes and Tool music.

Pretty much all lies.

 

[GoreTuzk]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion). And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick, I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country. The fact is, it's a game of musical chairs [http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=201554&Itemid=100114&lang=en] and it's therefore immoral because it's inherent in the system that at the end of the round there's always some who get fucked. Can you tell me that's BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it, but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences. Since the biology is something we're stuck with, TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability with a transparent and nature-based system in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Just having an open mind lets an awful lot of garbage in.
An open, critically thinking mind, however does not.
A closed mind lets inside nothing.
Sadly, the middle is often mistaken by the first as the last.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion). And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick, I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country. The fact is, it's a game of musical chairs [http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=201554&Itemid=100114&lang=en] and it's therefore immoral because it's inherent in the system that at the end of the round there's always some who get fucked. Can you tell me that's BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it, but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences. Since the biology is something we're stuck with, TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability with a transparent and nature-based system in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Just having an open mind lets an awful lot of garbage in.
An open, critically thinking mind, however does not.
A closed mind lets inside nothing.
Sadly, the middle is often mistaken by the first as the last.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

So let me get this straight: you guys are anti-college establishment, but you're pro-scientific method? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Zacharine]

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion).

Okay, so you are uninterested in religious history.

And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick

Funnily enough, several of the books there happen to be my course-books/supplemental reading to them. Guess they do have good sources every now and again?

Also, quick check, I do not think those Kottler articles are referenced in the wiki?

But apparently, you are unwilling to do any study on the issue - after all, you already appear to know the Truth and anyone claiming otherwise is just pawns of the current establishments/Megacorporations/close-minded sheep.

At least, that is what often is being said with those words.

I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Read the books, and you'll find out. I'm not here to teach you 50 ECTS worth of introductory economics or psychology 101.

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

Actually yes, and quite succesfully at that. You've never been to the university if you think they're all about teaching people facts, without teaching them how to find, establish, overturn and use those facts. Those same universities that have for centuries pushed back the boundaries of knowledge. The same universities that have lead to all kinds of wonderful inventions.

Oh, but those inventions were made by individuals, not the establishments, right? It's not like the community, the equipment in the labs, the reference libraries and the assistants had anything to do with those advancements. So you can still keep saying 'Technology good, establishments bad'.

Sorry, my mistake.

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country.

I happen to have an extreme prejudice against pure capitalism, thank you very much. Many in fact label me as a socialist as far as financial matters are concerned. In fact, I also think that ethical responsibility is just as important for a succesfull company as profit marigin is.

Can you tell me that's BS?

Yes. See, that would be the case in pure capitalism with zero oversight. Which is why I am glad no country is purely capitalistic and every country has some oversight.

There's this thing called specialization. Let us say that A can manufacture 2 hunting arrows or 15 clay tiles in an hour. B can manufacture 5 hunting arrows or 6 clay tiles in an hour.

In order to create 10 arrows, A would have to use 5 hours worth of work, whereas 2 hours is sufficient for B. Likewise, for B to manufacture thirty clay tiles, it would take 5 hours of work, whereas A can do that in two hours.

Let us say A and B agree to trade. A produces tiles, B hunting arrows.

So A works for two hours, and produces 30 tiles. B produces 10 arrows. A then trades 10 tiles for 3 arrows.

A is left with 20 tiles and 3 arrows, B with 10 tiles and 7 arrows. For two hours of work. Both are left with more wealth than they would have if they didn't trade - they make profit AND save time.

Let us however say that it takes once a week an hour for them to actually do the trade. But they do not like to travel. C however, does like travelling. He has a cart, that is usually half-empty. He is willing to ferry the goods once a week, for the price of 10 tiles and 3 arrows.

A and B are left with more wealth than either would have without trading, receive the convenience of not having to travel (they do not like it) and C, by doing a minor task on a route he already travels, also makes profit.

All three parties are happy.

That is one of the major principles of economics simplified and explained via an anecdote.

How is that BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it

Whoa, whoa, whoa, back off a bit. When have I said anything about social cohesion being tied to the monetary system?

Money is an invaluable tool for measuring the relative worth of completely different items, and an excellent tool to make trading much, much simpler. That is it.

How the heck does anyone tie Social Cohesion into that? Oh, sorry, forgot again. Zeitgeist. Money = root of evil, no money = everything from social to engineering to medicinal problems are mystically solved.

but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences.

Exactly. Social and biological and cultural influences. Not financial. How is that distinction so hard to make?

TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method

Curiously enough, science is descriptive only. It can only say what factually is. never what morally/ethically ought to be. Science can help us understand social and cultural phenomena, but it can offer no solutions because first we have to decide what actually is the solution. Read upon Hume's Guillotine sometime.

to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability

Interesting, I've heard those lines spouted by politicians from the left, right and center. Yet no-one seems to be able to say how it's supposed to realistically happen.

with a transparent

All systems are just as transparent as we want them to be.

and nature-based system

As before, Hume's Guillotine. The fact that a praying mantis female eats the male after copulation is not endorsement of cannibalism. The state of nature simple is. What ought to be cannot be derived from what is alone. Sometimes, the state of nature requires changing - such as when your hand is broken and you want it healed.

in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Funnily enough, last time I checked that also pretty much applies currently.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

The Irony. It Burns.