This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I have been mute on this thread for a while cause I was busy going to a conference. I'll come back to you soon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

So how was it?

I can't remember now.

But I doubt those guys who think the earth is flat are serious. I know some believe the world was created 5000 years ago but I could see sarcasm in those who believe the earth is flat.

What I may say maybe is that there are facts that "serious" people hold true which are as laughable as earth being flat.

Astonishingly, they really are serious. It's borne from a combination of current instinctive (and mostly rational) reactions;

- a loss of faith in expertise from authority; the failure of economists to see the 2008 crash, or the ridiculous scare stories pre-Brexit vote since shown to be rubbish; incorrect dietary advice over the last 40 years
- the cyncism borne from outright lying by governments; notably in warfare but also in terms of manifestation of political correctness in normal discourse
- a receptiveness for radically different answers (the incredible phenomenon of Marxism still being given a respectable hearing despite 100 years of 100% failure)
- a widespread celebration of ignorance, arguably promoted by idiot celebrity culture

Put this together with the internet where any two cranks can meet and affirm their views and you get here.

That said, I don't see flat Earth as any more ridiculous than believing in supernatural sky father creators; at least the flat Earth guys have the self-respect to try to find evidence for their theory, the theists revel in the absence of evidence and wear it as a badge of honour!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I have been mute on this thread for a while cause I was busy going to a conference. I'll come back to you soon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

So how was it?

I can't remember now.

But I doubt those guys who think the earth is flat are serious. I know some believe the world was created 5000 years ago but I could see sarcasm in those who believe the earth is flat.

What I may say maybe is that there are facts that "serious" people hold true which are as laughable as earth being flat.

In short, everyone that disagrees with your opinions is laughable.

That much for “open mind”....

bogbrush wrote:
- a receptiveness for radically different answers (the incredible phenomenon of Marxism still being given a respectable hearing despite 100 years of 100% failure)

Just one point. Capitalism has been the reason for centuries and centuries of wars (and not religion as we are told to believe) and we may have another one which may destroy the whole planet, before capitalism destroys it ecologically....then we will say capitalism was also a complete failure.

I have said many times, the system, whether capitalism or communism, is a product of man and the problems are simply in essence his basic sins such as greed, envy, corruption, egos etc....

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I have been mute on this thread for a while cause I was busy going to a conference. I'll come back to you soon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/41973119/why-do-people-still-think-the-earth-is-flat

So how was it?

I can't remember now.

But I doubt those guys who think the earth is flat are serious. I know some believe the world was created 5000 years ago but I could see sarcasm in those who believe the earth is flat.

What I may say maybe is that there are facts that "serious" people hold true which are as laughable as earth being flat.

In short, everyone that disagrees with your opinions is laughable.

That much for “open mind”....

There are things which are "obvious". Like the moon, is at least round (if let's say we could not prove it was spherical) but if someone tells me it is square then I would question his judgement.

Now regarding the world being 5k old, I find it difficult to believe seeing so many bones of prehistorique animals dating way further back. So to believe that mankind (consicousness, you know the homo sapiens sapiens) might be 5k year old I can understand but think the planet is not older than that...sorry, yes it is laughable.

The spanish people from Galicia for instance say that on the 7th day of creating earth God rested by landing his hand on their region and this is why their cost is irregular. Now I am sure no people in Galicia really believe so but they poetically can describe their sea side.....unless you believe God did indeed lay his hand on Galicia on teh 7th day?

Tenez wrote:
There are things which are "obvious". Like the moon, is at least round (if let's say we could not prove it was spherical) but if someone tells me it is square then I would question his judgement.

Now regarding the world being 5k old, I find it difficult to believe seeing so many bones of prehistorique animals dating way further back. So to believe that mankind (consicousness, you know the homo sapiens sapiens) might be 5k year old I can understand but think the planet is not older than that...sorry, yes it is laughable.

the world is not 5k old, it's 6.6k old.

Those who are telling you the earth is spherical are the same ones telling you you came from monkeys and that the earth is billions of years old.

But I can never be arrogant enough to laugh at you for thinking so.

At the end of the day, one chooses what one believes. And one day it won't be a laughing matter.

I'll leaving it at that.

noleisthebest wrote:I'll leaving it at that.

Yes, it is better this way cause I am not sure on what logical ground we could extend on this.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
- a receptiveness for radically different answers (the incredible phenomenon of Marxism still being given a respectable hearing despite 100 years of 100% failure)

Just one point. Capitalism has been the reason for centuries and centuries of wars (and not religion as we are told to believe) and we may have another one which may destroy the whole planet, before capitalism destroys it ecologically....then we will say capitalism was also a complete failure.

I have said many times, the system, whether capitalism or communism, is a product of man and the problems are simply in essence his basic sins such as greed, envy, corruption, egos etc....

No, free market capitalism is not responsible for wars. Wars are started between States, not free individuals.

As for screwing up the environment, then I agree unrestrained people can do bad things but there are laws to counter that even in the most libertarian system.

The bottom line is that virtually every good thing you can see in the World around you exists because of free market capitalism. People are flawed but the way they associate has a huge bearing on the outcome and a free market is easily the greatest method yet devised. The ridiculous, disgusting ideas of socialism are the worst, right down there with theocracies (which are basically the same thing really).

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
There are things which are "obvious". Like the moon, is at least round (if let's say we could not prove it was spherical) but if someone tells me it is square then I would question his judgement.

Now regarding the world being 5k old, I find it difficult to believe seeing so many bones of prehistorique animals dating way further back. So to believe that mankind (consicousness, you know the homo sapiens sapiens) might be 5k year old I can understand but think the planet is not older than that...sorry, yes it is laughable.

the world is not 5k old, it's 6.6k old.

Those who are telling you the earth is spherical are the same ones telling you you came from monkeys and that the earth is billions of years old.

But I can never be arrogant enough to laugh at you for thinking so.

At the end of the day, one chooses what one believes. And one day it won't be a laughing matter.

I'll leaving it at that.

You're not serious are you? You think the World is 6,600 years old?

Tenez wrote:I have said many times, the system, whether capitalism or communism, is a product of man and the problems are simply in essence his basic sins such as greed, envy, corruption, egos etc....

Yes, at the end of the day, people are the problem - our greed, envy, thirst for power, etc.

That said, not all systems are equally good - and communism is far worse than capitalism.

bogbrush wrote:No, free market capitalism is not responsible for wars. Wars are started between States, not free individuals.

This is a copout.  States have always existed, and states in capitalist societies start the wars too.  There has never existed a "free market society" that would never start wars.  So your free market capitalism that does not start wars is a mirage that exists in fairy tales and deluded minds, but not in real life.

Sadly you are right, and therefore wrong.

You seem to be telling me that as States tend not to permit free market capitalism, free market capitalism must be to blame for what States do.

No, I am just saying that your counterpoint to Tenez is not substantive.

When Tenez says that capitalism has been responsible for wars, he presumably means systems that are generally viewed as "capitalist".  Your counterpoint does not address substance of the matter (i.e., are those systems as responsible for wars as he suggests) but semantics (i.e., you would not describe those systems as "capitalist").

Which is sort of like Amri when he says that Rafa is not a moonballer because he hits high topspin, not a moonball.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:I have said many times, the system, whether capitalism or communism, is a product of man and the problems are simply in essence his basic sins such as greed, envy, corruption, egos etc....

Yes, at the end of the day, people are the problem - our greed, envy, thirst for power, etc.

That said, not all systems are equally good - and communism is far worse than capitalism.

Capitalism will be far much worse if the US, your new country which best represents Capitalism, leads us to a 3rd world war. My view is that Capitalism has already done more damaged than even an extremely bad implementation of Communism.

Having said that, I am not a communist, nor a socialist. If anything I like Capitalism as it best represents our human nature, the good and the very bad!

summerblues wrote:No, I am just saying that your counterpoint to Tenez is not substantive.

When Tenez says that capitalism has been responsible for wars, he presumably means systems that are generally viewed as "capitalist".  Your counterpoint does not address substance of the matter (i.e., are those systems as responsible for wars as he suggests) but semantics (i.e., you would not describe those systems as "capitalist").

Which is sort of like Amri when he says that Rafa is not a moonballer because he hits high topspin, not a moonball.

That’s completely backwards. How could anyone describe a system based on State power enforced through threat of violence as a free market? That is bonkers.”Generally viewed” just means “misconceived by loads of people”.

Just thing for a moment; when wars happen between States do you think it’s the free market capitalists who decide to do it or the Statists?

To use your analogy, it’s more like complaining that Federer is a defensive player because he keeps trying to end points quickly.

No, you are missing the point.  You are focusing on terminology too much.

Suppose instead of saying "capitalism does damage" Tenez said "systems similar to the US system do damage".  You might well agree with him.  But that is, as far as I can tell, what he means.  He means systems similar to the US system. Whether he calls them capitalism (like many people do) or whether calling US system capitalism is inappropriate and we should instead use a different word (like you seem to suggest?) is irrelevant for the purpose of discussion.

Harping on the word "capitalism" is a side-issue.  Maybe the system that you call capitalism (and that - you seem to admit - never existed) would not start wars.  But that is not what - as far as I can tell - Tenez is talking about.

Tenez wrote:My view is that Capitalism has already done more damaged than even an extremely bad implementation of Communism.

Could not disagree more.  Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  My guess is it is emotional:  you live in capitalism - then you see all the bad things it does - then you become emotionally repulsed by it - then you see everything else in better light - and that skews your perception.

Of course capitalism does an awful lot of evil.  Every system does - people are more evil than they are good.  But not appreciating how much more evil had been done by communism - in a relatively short time span - is naïve.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:My view is that Capitalism has already done more damaged than even an extremely bad implementation of Communism.

Could not disagree more.  Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  My guess is it is emotional:  you live in capitalism - then you see all the bad things it does - then you become emotionally repulsed by it - then you see everything else in better light - and that skews your perception.

Of course capitalism does an awful lot of evil.  Every system does - people are more evil than they are good.  But not appreciating how much more evil had been done by communism - in a relatively short time span - is naïve.

...or you are the emotional one cause you (or your parents) have actually "lived" that bad implementation of Communism.

But likewise, ask the poor Iraki boy who has been maimed, the Lybian girl who lost her parents, The Syrian mother who lost all her children what they think of Capitalism as all those wars, and chaos that follows, are there to keep the failing western economies afloat, so that you and I can keep our jobs. They have more reasons than you and I to be emotional about capitalism.

Or the 50m who died under Mao, or the 20+m under Stalin, or the extermination’s that went on under Pol Pot.

And this is without reminding you - again - that the actions of a State have by definition nothing to do with a free market concept whereas Communism IS a system based on the primacy of the State.

No wonder mankind keeps repeating the same stupidity when much of it has the memory of a goldfish.

summerblues wrote:No, you are missing the point.  You are focusing on terminology too much.

Suppose instead of saying "capitalism does damage" Tenez said "systems similar to the US system do damage".  You might well agree with him.  But that is, as far as I can tell, what he means.  He means systems similar to the US system. Whether he calls them capitalism (like many people do) or whether calling US system capitalism is inappropriate and we should instead use a different word (like you seem to suggest?) is irrelevant for the purpose of discussion.

Harping on the word "capitalism" is a side-issue.  Maybe the system that you call capitalism (and that - you seem to admit - never existed) would not start wars.  But that is not what - as far as I can tell - Tenez is talking about.

I admit, I’m focusing on the correct meaning of words.

Tenez wrote:But likewise, ask the poor Iraki boy who has been maimed, the Lybian girl who lost her parents, The Syrian mother who lost all her children what they think of Capitalism as all those wars, and chaos that follows, are there to keep the failing western economies afloat, so that you and I can keep our jobs.

Of course it is horrible for middle eastern kids.  That is what I mean by you being emotionally confused.  You see their predicament and blank out on the fact that far bigger numbers were slaughtered by communism in far worse circumstances.  As BB points out, those numbers were into scores of millions.  The entire middle eastern mess is - as sad as it is - little potatoes against that.

If you point out middle eastern situations as "proof" that capitalism is the most evil system ever, you need to read up on your history.  Countless cases over millennia where far worse was being done.

bogbrush wrote:I admit, I’m focusing on the correct meaning of words.

Yeah, but at the cost of sidetracking the convo.  That is why I said it is similar to Amri.  Technically he is also right that Rafa's shots are not moonballs.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I admit, I’m focusing on the correct meaning of words.

Yeah, but at the cost of sidetracking the convo.  That is why I said it is similar to Amri.  Technically he is also right that Rafa's shots are not moonballs.

You’re talking nonsense.

This discussion began when Tenez said “Just one point. Capitalism has been the reason for centuries and centuries of wars ”  He didn’t say Western governments, he said  “capitalism”. It was crystal clear, he referred to an economic system of organisation.

And I have responded by pointing out that it is not capitalism that starts wars but States.

And you think I’m sidetracking the conversation because, it appears, you think capitalism = democratic governments, or something.

You see the problem here?

problem is that it is understood the capital(ism) starts and funds wars (by controlling/appointing governments) in order to satisfy its need number one: growth.

Boy, no wonder there’s problems in the World.

You’re referring to Corporatism.

BB, you are acting silly. Insisting on using the term "corporatism" for the US system that everyone routinely calls "capitalist" is childish - even if technically you may be correct.

summerblues wrote:Of course it is horrible for middle eastern kids.  That is what I mean by you being emotionally confused.  You see their predicament and blank out on the fact that far bigger numbers were slaughtered by communism in far worse circumstances.  

Ah so now you are allowed to become emotional because according o you communism produced more death.

As BB points out, those numbers were into scores of millions.  The entire middle eastern mess is - as sad as it is - little potatoes against that.

I dispute those numbers. But just the second world war has over 60million casualties, add the 20million of WWI and you eclipse those numbers. But again, Communism itself was not a killing machine. Just that once again, a tyran called Stalin used communism to establish his dictatorship. Plus the implementation process was against human nature so I agree it created mayhem but still not in the same order as capitalism....especially since we have not seen the end of it yet!

If you point out middle eastern situations as "proof" that capitalism is the most evil system ever, you need to read up on your history.  Countless cases over millennia where far worse was being done.

I know my history, but never in history you had the scale the casualties you have had in the last 100 years. The Middle East is still a very vibrant case of capitalism thirst for blood.

summerblues wrote:BB, you are acting silly.  Insisting on using the term "corporatism" for the US system that everyone routinely calls "capitalist" is childish - even if technically you may be correct.

I can’t help you if you don’t understand the terms. Seriously, I’m using English here.

Tenez wrote:Communism itself was not a killing machine. Just that once again, a tyran called Stalin used communism to establish his dictatorship

Communism was murderous again and again in many places - not just with Stalin.  It was murderous in the Soviet Union before Stalin, it was murderous in China, it was murderous in Cambodia.  Not sure why you are trying to whitewash its history.

Right Tenez, the Middle East is all to do with capitalism. Nothing to do with a 3000 year conflict and a crazy religion, with oil and national interests thrown in.

You dispute the number of deaths due to communism? That’s hopeless.

Doesn’t anyone know the difference between capitalism and corporatism.

Time for the forum to get a dictionary.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:Communism itself was not a killing machine. Just that once again, a tyran called Stalin used communism to establish his dictatorship

Communism was murderous again and again in many places - not just with Stalin.  It was murderous in the Soviet Union before Stalin, it was murderous in China, it was murderous in Cambodia.  Not sure why you are trying to whitewash its history.

It is murderous IN EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF USE because it depends on forcing people against their will. Always it involves guns, camps, purges. Every single time.

bogbrush wrote:

summerblues wrote:BB, you are acting silly.  Insisting on using the term "corporatism" for the US system that everyone routinely calls "capitalist" is childish - even if technically you may be correct.

I can’t help you if you don’t understand the terms. Seriously, I’m using English here.

Nitb tells you that the US is responsible for a lot of evil.  You, as far as I can tell, for all practical purposes agree with her, but you are offended by her use of the term capitalism so you make it sound like you disagree.  What is not silly about it?

bogbrush wrote:It is murderous IN EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE OF USE because it depends on forcing people against their will. Always it involves guns, camps, purges. Every single time.

Oh yeah, I essentially agree.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

summerblues wrote:BB, you are acting silly.  Insisting on using the term "corporatism" for the US system that everyone routinely calls "capitalist" is childish - even if technically you may be correct.

I can’t help you if you don’t understand the terms. Seriously, I’m using English here.

Nitb tells you that the US is responsible for a lot of evil.  You, as far as I can tell, for all practical purposes agree with her, but you are offended by her use of the term capitalism so you make it sound like you disagree.  What is not silly about it?

Because the wrong word is used!

Capitalism is the best system for humans to organise every known. It’s the cause of pretty much all advancement. It invokves people making offers to each other with no requirement for their acceptance. 

When States collude with corporations (a creation of the state, being legal entities) you get something very twisted.

Different things. If we use the right words we can all understand each other, what’s going on here is conflating a corrupt stitch up with free choice, and the free choice system being tainted with the effects of the twisted one.

bogbrush wrote:Because the wrong word is used!

Because he does not hit moonballs!

HE DOESN'T HIT MOONBALLS OK, SB IS SPOT ON

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Because the wrong word is used!

Because he does not hit moonballs!

Great, so now ignorance is celebrated and it’s deemed we all know what we mean when we use big words we don’t understand.

DECIMA wrote:HE DOESN'T HIT MOONBALLS OK, SB IS SPOT ON

Welcome back!  You came back three weeks earlier than I expected.

summerblues wrote:

DECIMA wrote:HE DOESN'T HIT MOONBALLS OK, SB IS SPOT ON

Welcome back!  You came back three weeks earlier than I expected.

Haha, thank you 

Had exams and then project which is nearly submitted, been so busy in last few months.