StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:sweety, what i have cited is FACT and easily verifiable if 1 is willing to go look, its all in the congressional record.

i may not have used a citational formula but its all true....otherwise i wouldnt have written it.

Cut the crap, G. You know I was not talking about your 'formula', but about the fact that you strew 'facts' about without actual backup. We don't have what is in your head. Your 'facts' require citation, as Taure said.
And umm..

[KMA]Avenger wrote:4, the Fed are more powerful than the US Govt...FACT!

I don't know how you figure this to be a fact, but it clearly is an emotional statement. "more powerful as" is an entirely subjective qualification. There is no standard for power, and the Fed is not higher on it as the USGov.
While you may feel the Fed is more powerful as USGov, there is nothing that supports your bold claim of fact.

If I didn't know you would miss my point, I would suggest you stop tossing about and let the nice government people tuck you in..



You know.. the more I think about it.. the more it seems like a good idea to suspend the government for like 2 months.
At the end of the 2 months, the few people still alive that have not reverted to their animalistic ways are welcome to reform the system.
Would solve a lot of problems, if you ask me. Then again.. the local rebel from the next generation will find faults in that system too.
What can I say.. it's an imperfect world. (Gotta love your platitudes.)

Universe wrote:You know.. the more I think about it.. the more it seems like a good idea to suspend the government for like 2 months.
At the end of the 2 months, the few people still alive that have not reverted to their animalistic ways are welcome to reform the system.
Would solve a lot of problems, if you ask me. Then again.. the local rebel from the next generation will find faults in that system too.
What can I say.. it's an imperfect world. (Gotta love your platitudes.)

Oh wonderful...now suggestion to regress to a primates world. (hmm it's an offense from me to compare our ancestors to that, my apologizes to them for such disrespect towards them )

I know governements wouldn't appreciate -at all- this suggestion, fortunately.


And since I'm siding more or less with my governement, and that I am not a rebel at all (hehe ), I am -logically- 100% opposed to this.

just for the record (and unlike many of you guys...n galls), i do actually read and research what many of you say!

did you even bother to go look for yourself to see if what i've said is true or not, or do you seriously think i sit on my end of the net and concoct fantasies or parrot other peoples fantasies???

and further more...condemnation without investigation is the HIGHEST form of ignorance!

will you or will you not go and do some of your own research instead of relying on me to do the donkey work for you?

and btw...i dont talk "crap", my time is precious to me, in short, i dont waste time by passing on false information. i have provided some truths, you refuse to elevate your understanding? your loss not mine!

I remember he used to post links..but it's been some time since he stopped.

discussing economics without first understanding who is in control of the economic system is like a baby trying to run before they can even hold there head up by themselves.


2ndly, i can post all those things, but much of what i say is hard (if not impossible for some) to understand, much less comprehend the severity of what i say. so i get blasted, lambasted and condemned for it...good job i have a thick skin and consider what i do and say a service for my fellow man in order he truly understands the world we live in. the point being that if it is so hard to fathom and believe then the knowledge will be assimilated much easier if you go see for yourselves rather than have me show you...

you think i believed any of this till i started looking and cross referencing for myself?

a good place to start is in the American phone book, you will see that the Federal Reserve is listed in the private section (right next to federal express) and NOT in the Govt pages.

you can also go look at the congressional records and see what they have to say about all this.

i also look at archival newspaper articles. below is a link which took me all of 20 seconds to find!

click the blue button "view full article":

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 946196D6CF

try to understand that as you say, i used to post links, but since nobody used to cross reference the links and info i provided to see if they had any weight and substance to them i stopped posting them, but the info is readily available and you will sooner believe it if you find it on your own, i simply prefer to give the info now.

Apadamek wrote:

GhostyGoo wrote:

Apadamek wrote:and then give you the bread I had made out of common human decency, well you have another thing coming, you've done nothing to deserve that reward.

Sorry mate, i'm about to go to bed but just so you don't feel insulted by what i said, it was you who admitted that you are neither common nor decent!

Theres nothing uncommon or indecent for not wanting to give someone something you've worked extremely hard for, just for some childish concept of 'human decency'.

Let me deconstruct what you just said, i'm not being rude by this, only trying to point out where you, philosophically arguing with your own nature.

there's nothing indecent about not wanting to be decent.

Come now, if this statement is not a glaring inconsistency i dunno what is!

Apadamek wrote:Decency defined as expectation of mindlessly giving away all hard work for some grandiose cause, when just being a consumer is doing that but in a far more appreciable way, in not only helping yourself but everyone else as well.

Lol. How the misguided desperately squirm within their own hole.

You are consuming to consume. You are not achieving anything of any circumstance because your only goal is consumption - you are ammoral, like it or not. Indecent. Inconsistent. I don't think you are a naturally bad person because you do this innocently, through naivete. You do not have a higher concept than this. It's hard not to insult but believe me, i mean you no offence appy, if you are happy it is all that matters. You are not exploiting anyone. If you were, we would be having a different conversation. Decency is a labour in itself when seen through the eyes of capitalism however when seen through the eyes of the greater good it is simply honourable experience, enlightenment.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:we have been taught that supply and demand dictates the value. that's a fallacy that everyone in the world who doesn't understand the banking systems true purpose is welcomed to

*nods*

Universe wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:sweety, what i have cited is FACT and easily verifiable if 1 is willing to go look, its all in the congressional record.

i may not have used a citational formula but its all true....otherwise i wouldnt have written it.

Cut the crap, G. You know I was not talking about your 'formula', but about the fact that you strew 'facts' about without actual backup. We don't have what is in your head. Your 'facts' require citation, as Taure said.
And umm..

[KMA]Avenger wrote:4, the Fed are more powerful than the US Govt...FACT!

I don't know how you figure this to be a fact, but it clearly is an emotional statement. "more powerful as" is an entirely subjective qualification. There is no standard for power, and the Fed is not higher on it as the USGov.
While you may feel the Fed is more powerful as USGov, there is nothing that supports your bold claim of fact.

If I didn't know you would miss my point, I would suggest you stop tossing about and let the nice government people tuck you in..



You know.. the more I think about it.. the more it seems like a good idea to suspend the government for like 2 months.
At the end of the 2 months, the few people still alive that have not reverted to their animalistic ways are welcome to reform the system.
Would solve a lot of problems, if you ask me. Then again.. the local rebel from the next generation will find faults in that system too.
What can I say.. it's an imperfect world. (Gotta love your platitudes.)

With respect, if a red round fruit is an apple it does not mean that all red round fruits are apples. Stating someone's fact is infactual by way of citation is simply paradoxical. You wuold not be able to set yourself in position to counter said fact with producing that which you request yourself ie. data. Have you data which disproves this fact? No. So, the empiricalist goes forwards and diregards this as infactual but the existentialist recognises the sentiment and looks for evidence. You want evidence that Avenger's sentiments are factual? Are you mad? To ask for evidence of one's emotions you must first express your own, purely expressing them debunks your argument against and you cause a paradox. It is called "the absurd". Avenger's sentiments are equally as factual as yours when discussed in forms of emotion. Subjectively you are agreeing with that5 which you are trying to exclude. Absurd. Very philosophical but also somewhat primative in existential thought.

I would be very happy for the government to be suspended for 1 week. We have a commons the law of which i have a huge respect for. Governments are not there to facilitate change, they are there to keep the staus quo. They are only required because so many of us act inconsistently, unnaturally. Against natural law. Government is an illusion and unlawful at that. It is based upon acts and statures which you have a CHIOCE about. This is democracy, or have you forgotten like so many others. The true test of a "free society" is to leave it. If you are "acted upon" when trying to seperate yourself from the society then how can it possibly be free?

Thank you. I will contemplate your response, Goo.
I do tend to rush my arguments, on occasion in a somewhat hypocritical fashion.

My next argument will be better formed.
(but not right now, as I am off to bed)

GhostyGoo wrote:
I would be very happy for the government to be suspended for 1 week. We have a commons the law of which i have a huge respect for. Governments are not there to facilitate change, they are there to keep the staus quo. They are only required because so many of us act inconsistently, unnaturally. Against natural law. Government is an illusion and unlawful at that. It is based upon acts and statures which you have a CHIOCE about. This is democracy, or have you forgotten like so many others. The true test of a "free society" is to leave it. If you are "acted upon" when trying to seperate yourself from the society then how can it possibly be free?

Lol
In my country, anyone suggesting on a large scale diffusion (if it gets spread thru different medias or is a serious issue) governement suspension or anything crazy/dangerous like that, that person would get country's secret services (or police) spying his/her actions, to make sure that said person doesn't cross the line, and becomes a threat to the country and its -honest- people. Against the law kind of people, or rebels if you prefer, you are. We see (not everyone, but some of us) as a "threat", every person being a serious menace to society's and its -honest- people integrity (anarchists, radical parties, religion extremists..).
Governements don't like anarchists or anything of that sort..
Neither do I.
Anarchists are among the historical enemies of the right wing, who's currently in office in my country, this explaining that in my above comments. Because right wing wants order and secured society with least crimes possible, anarchists want the opposite.

And I think that some people here should remember what Hobbes said...they would know then, that no governement is a TOTAL NONSENSE..unless of course they want raping and murdering everywhere every second in countries without ANYTHING to prevent it, or to punish them. Since there would be NO law.
It would give *very* good opportunities to criminals to act freely as they wish, they would probably thank you for said suggestions rofl..to play criminals' game, that they only dreamed it would happen, so much it seemed wonderful and untrue for them. But you would make it true, all the rapers, murderers, psychopaths, their biggest dream would become true! Act as they wish, without *anything* stopping them! Becoming the heroes of the worst kind of people on Earth, that's very cool, isn't it?

As I said, against the law kind of people, to think of a way to facilitate criminal's actions.
Also, I'm curious to know what those "anarchy supporters" would feel/think when it would be "their turn" to face said anarchy and violence, when the gun or whatever weapon/threat, would be pointed towards them etc...
Sometimes, I think people should think a BIT more about things..

Laws of nature= acting like a chimpancé. Wow, I really wish those laws would be back! That would be a never-before-seen progress for humanity! That would be the best solution to evolve to a super-advanced civilization! (I'm, of course, ironic...because that's typically and without any possible doubt the worst ANTI-progress style of idea)

If I was in the head of a country, *every* person who would think that anarchy is good, would be given a free year ticket to different community services without any cent as a wage, of course!
At least, such annoying rebels would be useful for something!


I hope you appreciated my realistic analysis?

[spoiler]

The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature.

Within the state of nature there is no injustice, since there is no law, excepting certain natural precepts, the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it"[1]; and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself"[1]. From this, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual contracts.

[/spoiler]

@Cole, i dont know if any of that post is directed at me (as well as others) but i have NEVER advocated, nor would i advocate lawlessness or anarchy for ANY reason.

what really frustrates me is, people here (aimed at no one in perticular) read what i write but do not take any of it in...after all, its easier to condem someone rather than actually trying to understand what they say


all of you also fail to realize that our Govts (in their present state of power) pose more danger to our freedoms than either anarchists or terrorists.

personally, i would consider myself very lucky if the Govt calls me an anarchists...beats being called a home-grown terrorist for simply demanding Govt be returned to the people instead of working for the corporations and the bankers!

[KMA]Avenger wrote:@Cole, i dont know if any of that post is directed at me (as well as others) but i have NEVER advocated, nor would i advocate lawlessness or anarchy for ANY reason.

what really frustrates me is, people here (aimed at no one in perticular) read what i write but do not take any of it in...after all, its easier to condem someone rather than actually trying to understand what they say


all of you also fail to realize that our Govts (in their present state of power) pose more danger to our freedoms than either anarchists or terrorists.

personally, i would consider myself very lucky if the Govt calls me an anarchists...beats being called a home-grown terrorist for simply demanding Govt be returned to the people instead of working for the corporations and the bankers!

This wasn't directed at you...unless of course, you want gov suspension, then I would include you.

I used to be left wing, now I'm centre-right. I fight every theory being a menace to society and its -honest- people (by that I meant, I don't care about criminals' integrity and safetiness, just about honest people's ). Thus, me fighting this underground-rebel-chaotic-anarchist-anti-state theory.

Now, I'm not sure that people really believe in said anarchist theory, or at least, I really hope so..

SuperSaiyan wrote:

GhostyGoo wrote:

Apadamek wrote:

GhostyGoo wrote:

Apadamek wrote:and then give you the bread I had made out of common human decency, well you have another thing coming, you've done nothing to deserve that reward.

Sorry mate, i'm about to go to bed but just so you don't feel insulted by what i said, it was you who admitted that you are neither common nor decent!

Theres nothing uncommon or indecent for not wanting to give someone something you've worked extremely hard for, just for some childish concept of 'human decency'.

Let me deconstruct what you just said, i'm not being rude by this, only trying to point out where you, philosophically arguing with your own nature.

there's nothing indecent about not wanting to be decent.

Come now, if this statement is not a glaring inconsistency i dunno what is!

adjective
1. conforming to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc., as in behavior or speech.
2. respectable; worthy: a decent family.
3. adequate; fair; passable: a decent wage.
4. kind; obliging; generous: It was very decent of him to lend me his watch.
5. suitable; appropriate: She did not have a decent coat for the cold winter.
6. of fairly attractive appearance: a decent face.
7. Informal. wearing enough clothing to appear in public.
8. Slang. great; wonderful.

I'm guessing your going with number 4 there, which I bolded.

And its true, decency can refer to one person helping another, BUT, be careful you do not entwine that with philanthropy, for no matter your morals basic instinct is to survive. If it comes down to you and someone else, the general person would give nothing to aid the other if it meant death. Its natural instinct, we are all built to survive. and in this world you describe, even with currency gone, things will still be priced. NOTHING would be free. For people would revert back to the old ages, where you traded your days laber for that of another. A loaf of bread for a bottle of milk, a few eggs for blanket perhaps.

Few would give much to those in need, and the world move on. Are you indecent for not giving your excess to those who'd need it? I don't think so. In all honesty, do you give every cent you have now that is unneccesary to charities? I would bet not. does that make you undecent?

To be undecent in my eyes, is to sit by and do nothing when you see another in trouble, whether it be someone straned on the freeway with a busted car, or a guy living on a bench in need of a few bucks.

But your stretching th limit calling someone who is surviving, the way most people would indescent, for if you look at #1 in the definitions above, majority rules

Your outlook on the human condition SS is not fact, it's opinion and is not even a very defendable one. Maybe you should try to find some instances of self sacrifice in the natural world before you apply "it's every man for themselves" as a guiding law of human nature.

but anyway, the fractional market reserve sytem is a model that more closely represents the actual value of currency than a gold standard, and does it in a much more realistic way. Monetary value is actualy fluid, and basing the price on gold doesn't change that fact; as some would want you to beleive. Gold is bassically useless to the average person from a practical standpoint, But exhanging goods and services has become vital to the way we currently function. In the fractural system monitary value is based on the people's willingness to use it as a means of exchange; (not debt you zeitgeizer's). It's a far better system than using paper curency as a go between for some rock in the ground, once thought to have magical qualities. That's because the value of money can only be judged by a persons inclination to accept and exchange it and the FMR is the closest system to be applied (so far) to model that concept. (For more information visit your local economics professor and not some crappy low budget movie loosly based in reality)