Re: Externalization of psychological costs
From: Andre Lieven (dg411_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 03/06/05
- Next message: Mark Monson: "Re: Eminent Domain Abuse"
- Previous message: Tim Bronson: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- In reply to: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Next in thread: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Reply: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Mar 2005 01:51:06 GMT
"Meldon" (meldon_fens@meldon.com) writes:
> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:d0d439$auc$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>>>>....
>> > Money without anywhere to spend it or people to impress with it does
>> > not appear to be satisfactory reasoning.
>>
>> To *you*. Tell me, have you heard scores of rich people all declaring
>> " No, I don't want to grow my business, I have *enough* " ?
>
> Agreed. I'm sugesting there is an ensatiable hunger for more and more
> wealth and I'm proposing a reason for it.
For it to be a " reason ", you would need to, first, show some *facts*
that make the " reason " plausable.
As yet, you have offered none.
>> Besides, you just created a straw woman: That of having " (no)where
>> to spend it on. "
>
> I thought we were agreeing.
Not really, no.
> Ok. I'll bite. Based on your example, why wouldn't your statement >> The
> usual reasons: Money and power/control.>> also be a staw?
Because *facts* support those being common reasons.
>> Read " Oprah " and " " Vogue " and " Cosmo " lately ? Their advertisers
>> do appear to believe that they provide a lot of " somewhere " to spend
>> women's cash...
>
> I agree. But taken to the extreme, a destructed society is not benefical
> to anyone.
" Politics is perception ". This is also not news.
> So how can the greed (or whatever mechanism is at the core of the onion)
> be so powerful that it can overrun intelligent people's common sense?
Very easily: " Common " sense is a MS-nomer, in that it is not that common.
> (those people for instance that wish to grow their business as you stated).
Given how many businesses fail, common sense doesn't appear to be doing
that well over there, either.
>> > Perhaps if the elite are completely
>> > stupid (which I don't believe), your suggestion would be suitable.
>>
>> Ibid.
>>
>> > I would suggest
>> > that the motivation behind such insatiable greed is the belief that
>> > whites are going to be wiped out (race wars for example).
>>
>> Then, I'd have to say, stop watching bad tv and start dealing with the
>> real world. Theres no " race war " acomin'...
>
> We are both seeking the onion's core. Provide suitable replacement here
Why ? I'm not making claims of " upcoming race wars ". If YOU have any
actual facts to support that claim, its YOUR task to present such.
>>>>>>
>> > If a pending disaster
>> > is known (or perceived), then it would serve to motivate those who
>> > know, to seek ever increasing wealth.
>>
>> Exactly and totally wrong. Heres why: In times of disaster, people
>> who wish to hoard wealth, do NOT hoard paper: securities, stocks,
>> and cash. Because, when the *economy that underpins that paper
>> goes to shit, so does the paper*.
>
> I think you're supporting my point.
Again, no.
> The hypothetical your describing is a
> point along the destruction path. The point I'm describing comes later.
Proof ? Uh huh.
> Perhaps
Why " perhaps " ? Don't you *know* ?
> I am using a hypothetical consisting of total destruction, where you
> are describing a hypothetical which consists of non-total destruction.
Non sequitur. In a case of " total destruction ", wealth is irrelevent,
due to there being NO ONE to be wealthy...
Try again. Stick to the small words.
>> >> If a Feminist woman can have all the " advantages " of marriage that
>> >> she values, such as unilateral control, and some one else's resources
>> >> with which to exercise that control, then thats the reason right there.
>> >
>> > I would point out that corruption and misleading the public did not
>> > begin with feminism therefore it can not be the root cause although it
>> > certainly does serve as an example of the corruption model.
>>
>> Absurd. No one claimed that any one specific cause had to *invent*
>> the concept: That too, is a straw woman of your own illicit birth.
>> Play with her, on your own time.
>
> Sorry. I was hoping to resolve the underlying mechanism.
Well, you failed. Deal with it.
> The woman thing
... Feminism thing...
You just made the common but absurd MS-take of equating a birth
group, with a political special interest.
That was foolish of you.
> is one thing but there are others.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
> All of them share the ellusive destructive element.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> While we see can see it manifest throughout the ages in various
> forms, man killing man for example, there will no doubt be a common source.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> Religious people might describe it as the work of the devil for example.
> Perhaps its the rational equivalent of the evil (ignorance or whatever)
> inside us?
Look up the phrase " The banality of evil " sometime.
>> Rather, common human traits can be used for a myriad of purposes and
>> by a myriad of ideologies. As Feminism contains nothing but hate of
>> men and masculinity, with a dollop of " give me more, I don't have
>> to earn any of it ", it logically follows that Feminism will use
>> existing human tropes, in support of it's bigotry. Just as any
>> ideologhy of hate and bigotry does the same. Its just that there is
>> a difference between how Feminism does it, and, say, the KKK.
>
> I am totally on your side.
Good: You learn, grasshopper. <g>
>> >> The rest of the Divorce Industry is there to also get money from
>> >> being a part of that shakedown. Likewise, the single mommy industry.
>> >> Lawyers. Social service workers and agencies. Etc.
>> >
>> > Agreed, but the feminist phenomenon is not the only destructive force
>> > society has faced.
>>
>> OK: Again, since no one claimed otherwise, your statement is a
>> tautology.
>
> Again sorry. It is the logical next step to explore the core mechanism. I
> thought you were travelling with me.
Only as far as the facts take me.
>> > This is why I propose a greater evil is responsible and it has
>> > been around for a long time - not 30 years, but on the order of 3000
>> > years.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> Lies, deception, abuse of power and control? Are you suggesting these are
> new?
Those are a plurality of *effects*. You wrote as if you were claiming
a *singularity of cause*.
>> >> > which so far is marginalizing a group within society based on gender.
>> >>
>> >> Its not their gender...
>
> The group marginalized is men and especially fathers. I don't get your
> point.
That it is such men, and not women, being so marginalised.
>> > I think many divorced fathers would diagree.
>>
>> Read " The Divorce From Hell ", by Wendy Dennis, " Divorced Dads;
>> Shattering The Myths ", by Sanford Braver, " The Unexpected Legacy
>> Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith Wallerstein, and
>> " The Myth Of Male Power ", by Warren Farrell, and then, once you've
>> mastered the topic, get back to me...
>
> I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me there is a problem. I
> completly agree there is. I'm beginning to suspect you have alterior
> motives.
Free Clue: Only Soviet political types would claim that honest
disagreement ( And, consider that there *are* people around, who
know *more* than you do... ) must equal an evil motive.
You're really not helping yourself here, though you are displaying
common late teen/early legal adulthood age, as also covered in
recent polls that showed that barely half of US youths even thought
Freedom Of Speech was a good idea.
>> >> > I have to admit, after enduring some particularly adverse times and
>> >> > seeking insight to the perceived injustice (among other things), I
>> >> > am now giving more credence to conspiracy theories;
>> >>
>> >> Thats the easy/incomplete way to do it.
>> >
>> > The easy way is to accept everything we are fed as true.
>>
>> " A difference which makes no difference is no difference. " James
>> Blish.
>
> What the.... dont' tell me you're a bot.
<Projection> My writings are very easy to verify. But, you again
showed your compulsion to leap to MS-conceptions, rather than *do
any actual homework*.
Again, not good for you, or any ideas you're trying to float...
>> > To make sense in
>> > the dis-information society one has to be capable of independant
>> > thought.
>>
>> OK: Prove your claim of " disinformation " is correct...
>
> Propoganda is an example of disinformation. (seeks to mislead or misinform)
So ? Its one thing to say that a thing exists, its *quite another thing*
to claim that that thing is the *most common trope*.
> Proganda has existed and still exists. (in a state of war for example)
And, in teevee ads. So ? Many other sources of information are more
and more easily available, even off the 'Net.
>> > These are the most dangerous people in the state's eyes because these
>> > are the ones who stand a better chance at uncovering the truth.
>>
>> There are facts. There is no " one truth ".
>
> OK. They stand a better chance of uncovering more facts. Geez. Get with the
> program.
Why ? You offer no rational " program " as yet...
>> >> Its easy, but it gives wrong answers. As Fred Pohl says:
>> >> " Ask the *next question. "
>> >
>> > Have faith brother. Independance of mind, a sense of logic and access to
>> > information will rule out the falsities. I'm simply indicating that I
>> > lend greater credibility to such fringe thinking than I did previously.
>>
>> However, your claim wrt conspiracy " theories " belies that suggestion.
>>
>> Most such " conspiracies " are no more than occasional confluences
>> of interests. As the saying goes " nations don't have friends, they
>> have interests. "
>
> I'm using conspiracy for lack of a better word and a demonstration of a
> general principle.
There are plenty of better words: That you don't know them, only displays
that you don't know them.
I prefer " confluence of interests ", for it far, far, more accurately
conveys the reality of How Things Tend To Work.
> The principle is, things are not what they seem.
What things, and whats your *proof* that they are ?
> Now let's move on and discover what they really are.
Nope: Not until you answer the above question, in specifics.
>> >> > even so far as to
>> >> > consider "The Protocols of the Elders..", as a possibility.
>> >>
>> >> Then, you're a loon: That piece of tripe has been so often debunked,
>> >> that it would take major *bias* to even consider it. Just as with
>> >> flat Earth...
>> >
>> > Then so was Henry Ford.
>>
>> Relevence ? Many people, skilled in an area NOT that of the topic of
>> the " conspiracy " are as foolish as a baby, in such things.
>
> While you may be correct, it does not preclude that Ford was a loon.
Did I claim that he was ? No, so thats another of your straw women.
> Offer examples if you wish.
Why ? I'm not the one making claims of " conspiracies ".
>> BTW, you just committed the fallicy of " Appeal to ( Irrelevent )
>> Authority. ". Fifteen yard penalty.
>
> If I have, you will have to tolerate my debating skills. I was raised by
> racoons and never had an education outside of the river-bank.
They have 'Net access there ?
>> > I am fully aware of the document's detractions and I'm not saying it is
>> > true just that it I can give it greater credibility than I would have
>> > previously.
>>
>> <shrug>
>>
>> > I will point out that you imply the document can be nothing but false.
>> > I can not make that claim.
>>
>> Then, do your own homework, and fix your inability.
>
> You're being silly. I make no claim the document is true.
Then, you CANNOT use it to advance ANY arguments/claims that you wish
to state. QED.
>> >> > Sorry. I have friends who are
>> >> > Jewish and I apologize to them and others for what I don't intended
>> >> > to be the propagation of hate. I'm just calling it as I see it.
>> >>
>> >> Then, look farther and better. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT
>> >> 'citation'. "
>> >
>> > I think I understand though I would appreciate an example of the
>> > statement applied.
>>
>> " Women cannot have affairs. I know 30 women, and none of the had
>> any. ". Note: Female population of North America is around 165,000,000.
>
> I've made no such conclusion.
You're making statements about " conspiracies " as if they were in
any way true, factual, and supported by evidence.
>> >> > I reserve the right to revise my theory. :)
>> >>
>> >> You don't have a theory. You have, at absolute best, a hypothesis.
>> >
>> > I can accept the correction.
>>
>> Good.
>
> Whatever dude. You get the idea.
Indeed. I've likely had the " idea " for longer than you're been an
oxygen user...
>> >> And, as other actual theories have already shredded this hypothesis,
>> >> it cannot stand.
>> >
>> > The hypothesis is, a greater evil than feminism alone is at work. Not
>> > necessarily that it is a jewish conspiracy just that it is possible.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> Why is it not possible?
Thats an irrelevent query. If YOU wish to claim that it's " possible ",
its up to YOU to provide supporting evidence. Until you do that, no
one need treat any such claim as being anything more than empty
hyperbole.
>> If you have a belief that you are searching for facts in support of,
>> then you have stood science on it's head, and you will get the following:
>>
>> " Garbage in, garbage out. "
>>
>> The facts are what are supposed to drive the search for more facts, and
>> then a hypothesis that can account for *all* of the facts, even and
>> *especially* the " inconvenient " facts.
>
> Under this scenario you can't develop the hypthesis before you have the
> facts and that's not the case.
No proof offered ? Claim fails. Science proves you wrong.
>> >> The existance of Feminism, a force of sexist hate, also in no way is
>> >> proof of, say, whether humans landed on the Moon. They did, 12 of them.
>> >
>> > I understand the principle you describe and I haven't suggested a proof.
>>
>> Then, you don't even have a hypothesis: as a hypothesis *must* come
>> with a means to test it.
>>
>> At best, you have... a fantasy.
>
> Ok then. Glad we got that sorted out.
Indeed. Fantasies are not worthy of factual discussion. That exercise
is properly known as intellectual masturbation.
>> > If any proof exists, it is that feminism is not alone and is not the
> only
>> > example of a destructive societal force. If it is not alone, then there
>> > is a greater force at work since the destructive force has existed for
>> > centuries.
>>
>> Utter crap. Until and unless you can offer PROOF of this " greater
>> force ", it remains... utter and unsupported fantasy.
>
> What's so difficult to understand?
Nothing at all. For me, that is...
> Dolphins and people are both mamals. We share a common ancestor (if we
> accept Darwin). An agent of change exists and Darwin suggests it was
> evolution. Therefore, evolution is the greater force and common to both
> dolphins and people.
So ? Thats not a " destructive force ". Try again.
> Shit. Relax your standards a bit. We might get somewhere.
No. My standards demand testable proof. Absent that, and one is merely
jerking off. No thanks.
>> I don't deal in fantasy. Let me know if you have *any* facts to
>> offer.
>
> You are being deliberately unproductive.
Translation: How dare you not see my unsupported views as the truth ? "
Answer: Because I *know* far better, and I know unsupported BS when
I run across some. Especially pre college BS.
Now, if you wnat to discuss anything *factual*, try again.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
- Next message: Mark Monson: "Re: Eminent Domain Abuse"
- Previous message: Tim Bronson: "Re: A Prison State, If Not a Police State"
- In reply to: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Next in thread: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Reply: Meldon: "Re: Externalization of psychological costs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
