Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ahtman wrote:Ron Swanson is the head of the Pawnee, Indiana Parks and Recreation Department.
Ah, we haven't got that over here yet. I might look into other means of acquiring it, I've heard it's very funny.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ergotoxin wrote:Note that there two major concepts of anarchism...
Yeah, I've been trying to tell them, they haven't been listening
While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.
Though I will point out that is very much the anarchist POV on the matter, the communists would argue quite differently, and meanwhile the fascists mocked them both and took over the country.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/24 12:28:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
While individual anarchism only worked in few communes as far as I know, social anarchism was a popular political movement and it has sort of a rebirth nowadays. In the Spanish Civil War, Barcelona was under anarchist control and many anarchist ideas were implemented, however the revolution was betrayed and aborted by right-wing communists (may I suggest reading G. Orwell: Homage to Catalonia for more information). One of the reason why anarchists tend to hate communists.
Though I will point out that is very much the anarchist POV on the matter, the communists would argue quite differently, and meanwhile the fascists mocked them both and took over the country.
While I agree that my point of view is biased, I can't really defend stalinists, especially not in this case. Much has been written on the subject by people who were there, including Orwell who was actually critical of anarchism many times. Left-wing communists (POUM, trotskists and others) were persecuted by stalinists as well.
Ahtman wrote:No one likes Maslow. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I could beat him up.
What we need is Swanson's Pyramid of Greatness.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
ergotoxin wrote:While I agree that my point of view is biased
Well now I can't believe anything you say.
Everyone's point of view is biased, since everyone constructs his own reality differently. I try to be as objective as I can but ofcourse that is just a positivist ideal.
Not that you should believe anyone at all
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/24 14:42:38
ergotoxin wrote:While I agree that my point of view is biased, I can't really defend stalinists, especially not in this case. Much has been written on the subject by people who were there, including Orwell who was actually critical of anarchism many times. Left-wing communists (POUM, trotskists and others) were persecuted by stalinists as well.
I don't mean to defend the Stalinists, they don't deserve anything of the sort. My only intent was to argue that the various left factions were all factional, all equally incapable of considering the bigger picture.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
But again, you're looking at the general definition of aspiration rather than the specific, technical term it's given in these studies. Call hoobastank if you want, but it's the specific idea of people desiring to advance in class and status, and looking to prove their new status through the acquisition of material wealth.
You're right, that is what I'm doing. I'm doing that because I'm a materialist who doesn't make a hard distinction between material things like cars, and material things like the brain state that leads to compassionate behavior.
sebster wrote:
I'm saying that the economic structures of the time play a major role in defining society, just as the society plays a major role in defining the economic structures. As one changes the other adapts. If we were to reach a point where the economy was so utterly different that labour was barely needed, society would certainly change in incredible ways. One possible change would be towards a non-aspirational society, where the ownership of material goods proves you're ability to type a number into a replicator and no more, they can't be used to signify status over others. That may not be the result, but it is an entirely plausible one.
Sure, I agree with that. I would even say that such a society is likely what would come about. I'm merely adding that the impetus of economics would shift to things that we probably don't think of as commodities right now, things like compassion impulses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/24 20:53:31
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Nobody likes Maslow except the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and every other association of American medical professionals. Can we have an intelligent conversation without dismissing a body of work that hundreds of thousands of PHDs have endorsed as "High School" because someone can apply it in a way that you might not agree with.
I've noticed a common debate tactic that is being way over used here. When confronted by something that people have no way to refute they either attack the messenger as uneducated, or attack concepts as 101 or high school concepts without refuting them. Step back for a minute and think about how wrong that defense tactic is. That debate tactic is akin to going to the tactics forum and attacking someone's mathhammer for using grade school math without offering any intelligent debate to refute it's validity as applied.
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
I'm guessing you've never studied higher math, yeah?
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
No one likes fractions. Just another westerner with no imagination. In short I can beat him up
SM Bolter V Ork Boy without any cover save 2/3 hit 1/2 wound=1/3 shots kill an ork boy
Elementary school math....seriously?
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
Why would we try? The OT is the internet equivalent of a bunch of slackers taking a smoke break outside the back of their store. Anyone who takes this seriously and tries to apply debate rules, logic etc. seriously needs to re-examine their personal life choices.
And now, a weiner dog.:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4x-yY7lOBls" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/24 22:38:55
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The reality is that you are getting butthurt over a response that had a chart from a TV show in it. You are getting goofy responses at this point becuase you are a wildly overreacting and calling people ignorant. You are thin skinned apparently becuase your actions are that of one who is. Just saying aren't doesn't mean you aren't when you act the part. Just look at your last response, you spend half of it talking about how you aren't bothered by taunts while constantly referring to them, and the other insulting the OT board. Lighten up and go with the flow and you'll find this so much easier and much more fun.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
schadenfreude wrote:I'm too think skinned to upset. All I'm doing is pointing out childish debate tactics that only work on the simple minded. I work in a pediatric psych unit, so childish taunts are the last thing that upset me. I'm just starting to wonder if anybody in the off topic forum can do any better than childish taunts.
Plenty of people here can do better than childish taunts. The problem is that they generally aren't motivated to do better than childish taunts. However, I've found that approaching certain moderators (Manchu, for example) beforehand and politely requesting pro-active moderation of a thread can work. Throwing it out there where any idiot can post is just asking to be drowned out by idiots.
There is no need for mod. I think the real problem is I asked to much from the off topic forum when there seems to be a good chance that at any point in time the thread will degenerate into random internet babble because it is after all the off topic forum...
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
schadenfreude wrote:There is no need for mod. I think the real problem is I asked to much from the off topic forum when there seems to be a good chance that at any point in time the thread will degenerate into random internet babble because it is after all the off topic forum...
There you go again with the insults. It's hard to take your feigning at being on the high road, or pretense at intellectual superiority, when your argument is that no one here is really smart enough to respond. If you read other threads you will see that is obliviously not true. I wonder why others get more honest responses, but not you?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
micahaphone wrote:I'm very sorry, but I thought that I, along with many others, brought up valid points.
No no, you are much to stupid to have a coherent argument and he is much to smart to notice anything other than the obliviously silly posts and only respond to them.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
ergotoxin wrote:
Local communal government was agenda of social anarchism since the 19th century. It is a common misconception that anarchism = extreme individualism. Individualist anarchism had a good following in the USA, yay, but social anarchism always was the strongest anarchist movement in the Europe. Kropotkin's anarchocommunism was a popular movement in it's times, and still has its following nowadays between few radicals, although the larger anarchist community usually sees it as too etatist. I wouldn't say that it isn't "anarchism" though. Organization (therefore a government of sorts) is a main principle for any social anarchist movement, it just seeks to organize individuals in more just and liberal ways than the state does.
Individualist anarchism is, to my mind, at least as poorly defined as social anarchism.
Sure, they want to get rid of the state, but even the "good" theories of it tend to talk about the preservation of familial or friendship ties. Ties that naturally lead to governance.
What's that friend of mine? You want more food? Well, we can force some people to give it to you!
It might seem strange, but this is pretty well illustrated by Mongolian* history.
*Mongolian in the sense of good 'ol Genghis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/25 05:24:13
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
schadenfreude wrote:Nobody likes Maslow except the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and every other association of American medical professionals. Can we have an intelligent conversation without dismissing a body of work that hundreds of thousands of PHDs have endorsed as "High School" because someone can apply it in a way that you might not agree with.
No, that's not the issue, I'm not dismissing the model in all it's possible applications. I'm not even dismissing it in terms of it's relevance to economics. Maslow is used in foundational economics to good effect, where we are talking about the existing economic structures. But once we consider technological and social changes we need to consider how they might change our economic activity. At which point posting Maslow becomes very useless.
I've noticed a common debate tactic that is being way over used here. When confronted by something that people have no way to refute they either attack the messenger as uneducated, or attack concepts as 101 or high school concepts without refuting them. Step back for a minute and think about how wrong that defense tactic is. That debate tactic is akin to going to the tactics forum and attacking someone's mathhammer for using grade school math without offering any intelligent debate to refute it's validity as applied.
Nah, the only thing that's been confronting here has been your willingness to ignore or disregard an entire field of study that I'm pretty sure you hadn't heard of before this thread started. And really, once someone is willing to do that, armed with little more than a chart from highschool economics and a whole lot of moxie, how should we treat them?
In other news I kind of remember that thread, and vaguely remember the poster, who I'm guessing was you, making some kind of mistake. Could you give a link to the thread, and I'll read through it to maybe give you a little more detail on what you did wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sure, I agree with that. I would even say that such a society is likely what would come about. I'm merely adding that the impetus of economics would shift to things that we probably don't think of as commodities right now, things like compassion impulses.
Yeah, that's fair enough. Though it'd depend on the technology available how these things might be traded, which would likely produce economic structures that are totally alien to the one's we know now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/25 06:30:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Maslow's work are part of the field of psychology and thus will never become useless. You can argue they can become irrelevant, which is difficult. What you have not done is offer any counter argument on the points of what determines human need, and what needs can be met by an economic or political system. Zero input, only snide remarks.
What entire field of study have I ignored?
Economics, no
Political Science, no
Psychology, no
Politics, no
Biology, no
There is no entire field of study for the study of anarchy as it's a subfield of economics and/or political science.
As far as me using a simple chart goes all I have to say is it works to prove a point. I'm still waiting for any type of counterargument as to what constitutes human need, and what needs can or can not be met by an economic or political system. If nobody can answer those simple questions than a simple chart has worked in proving a point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS this isn't my 1st rodeo. I've entered online debates with very sharp anarchists before, which is why I was so disappointed with the quality of the posts on this forum.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/25 06:59:21
Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.
schadenfreude wrote:Maslow's work are part of the field of psychology and thus will never become useless. You can argue they can become irrelevant, which is difficult.
No, not really. In fact, I'll do it right now.
Valuation is a matter of qualia, not objective judgment.
Maslow is now irrelevant.
schadenfreude wrote:
What entire field of study have I ignored?
Economics, no
Political Science, no
Psychology, no
Politics, no
Biology, no
There is no entire field of study for the study of anarchy as it's a subfield of economics and/or political science.
You don't have to ignore something to get all things related to it wrong.
If it helps, lots of people have been wrong in the same way that you have been.
schadenfreude wrote:
I'm still waiting for any type of counterargument as to what constitutes human need, and what needs can or can not be met by an economic or political system.
I already gave you one above, and before.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/01/25 07:23:18
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
This thread is closed so I don't have to suspend people.
The posters here should remember Rule #1 applies in the OT as well, and that is starting to be enforced in line with the discussion in other portions of this board.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
