Coberst, may I introduce you to the comma? It looks like this:
,
and helps your reader navigate your sentences and discern your reading. It doesn’t hurt to include a few in your writing, promise.
This is some strange mutant Spam that Coberst is trying to feed us. Canned, put on a shelf, and brought out to be served at a much later date. :dubious:
Dude, you’re giving Spam a bad name!
After a great deal of soul searching and meditation, I have come to the radical conclusion that the sky is blue. I realize this may be incredibly difficult for the rest of you to wrap your feeble little minds around, but I believe it to be true. In a future thread, I will lay out all my evidence and explain the “outside-the-box” thinking that has led me to this current mental state, and if you’re lucky, you may be one of the few who are mentally equipped to understand.
I must admit that punctuation and spelling are not my strong suite. Thank God for spell-check.
Suite?
Thank God for spellcheck :dubious:
coberst, I think you might find this of singular material use in your struggle for truth. It’s long, but I think you’d get a lot out of it.
Sorry, I’m easily distracted. I was going to get back to this yesterday but…OOooo, shinny!
…
Er, sorry.
From who’s perspective are you making this statement for? The Market? Societies? From MY perspective, the only thing of value is certainly not commerce…and I’m probably one of the more rabid free market advocates on this board. People are certinly not important on as far as they either produce or consume stuff…except in anti-Capitalist propaganda. Even in the abstract they have other roles in the market.
Again, you make broad statements without even an attempt to explain WHY you think this is true. Its like you are passing down stone tablets from above. WHY do you think the only thing of value is the objective of commerce? Why do you think production and consumption are the only objectives that are important in society? WHAT do you base your statements on education being about maximizing production and consumption of commodities on?
Well, in the abstract I suppose this is true…if I close one eye and hop on my right foot tilting my head a certain way. Whats your point? Is this a good thing or a bad thing…and why?
Since you haven’t as yet backed up (or even bothered to go into details explaining what exactly these hollow words mean) this assertion I will take it as unproven rhetoric on your part and move on.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Whats your point?
So, you really don’t even understand the market, or capitalism at all, do you? Yet you think you are somehow qualified to expound on…well, whatever it is you’ve been driving at? In another thread I used an analogy…going to trot it out again. Its like a highschool drop out with no grasp of math attempting to debate about why quantum physics or general/special relativity is incorrect.
IOW, thats a pretty piss poor definition of the market…unless you are talking about the one you go to to get chips and beer on saturday nights.
Yes…its incredibly wise to do this. But since you appearently don’t understand what the market is or how it works, lets go about it from the other direction. What do YOU think is a better course to set standards for the value of colleges and universities? Government fiat? Small counsel of wise old elves? Lottery? Whim? What do YOU think should set societies values? What/who should determine it? Since the market lets SOCIETY do so, I’m curious as to what you think is a better way.
Please elaborate…no rhetoric is required.
:smack: I thought the OP was asking if we were going to hell in a hand basket!
You have yet to state a position as to what exactly SHOULD determine social values. You haven’t really shown why you think the market or capitalism impacts ‘social values’ directly as yet…nor given alternatives for us to ponder. Maybe you should junk this thread and start a new one based on what you actually want to talk about? Seriously, there are more folk who would probably support you on this board if you could just articulate what the hell you want to talk about, and to back some of your statements up with a bit more detail and less rhetoric.
Going to stop here as the rest is just meaningless rhetoric with no purpose I can determine.
-XT
Coberst doesn’t think. He regurgitates. And not very creatively. He doesn’t think critically, though he desperately wants you to think he does. He’s a textbook case of how NOT to pursue independent study.
Good stuff. Thanks for the reference.
xtisme
If you go to the last paragraph of the OP you will see this.
“I predict that we (the world) are “going to hell in a hand basket”. What do you think about this bit of prophecy? If you agree, what can you and I do today to help start a change in trajectory?”
I was not making this post to discuss what I considered to be generally common knowledge. The post was to set the stage for a discussion of a possible solution. I never expected that I was going to have defend what I thought was common knowledge.
To organize an essay to explain all of these matters would take a good deal of time and effort; I shall have to take some time to prepare such an essay.
I suspect that I need to start in the beginning and explain so many things upon which my OP assumed was a common pool of shared knowledge with only some minor variations. This will all take a good bit of time and probably several posts.
I propose that we all post broad-stroked premises about the condition of the world and vague, abstract solutions to strategic places on the Internet until everyone comes around.
coberst:
You were certainly in error if you think your ideas are common knowledge OR commonly accepted as acknowledged wisdom, outside of a few anti-Capitalist types or scruffy Communist rejects…at least my IMPRESSION of what point you are getting at. Certainly there is debate as far as how much of the market is a good thing, how much it should be regulated, etc etc. I hate to break this too you, but by and large Capitalism and relatively free markets have won the day. Every working nation and economy these days has some form of Capitalism on a sliding scale. Some set more store in regulation and control of their markets, some in using the market as an engine to provide goodies for social change, some emphasize these things less and give their markets more of a free hand with less regulation. Its debatable which of these methods works best in the long run, and I freely conceed that it IS a debate based on ones perspective and what things a person does or does not emphasize or value (economic strength and progress vs social needs, say).
You have been unclear as to what point you are actually trying to make in this thread, simply spouting rhetoric and empty aphorisms that you appearently assume are widely accepted truths…in code so only the ones in the know understand what you are getting at. If you want to articulate your position more fully then I or others will be happy to debate you. You may find, if you take the time to drop the rhetoric and empty phrases and actually TALK about your points in detail that you have allies on this board for some of your positions. Give it a whirl.
-XT
Hear, hear!
After all, the more vague, the more true.
Please, Coberst…[SIZE=3]**not another essay![/**SIZE] Debates don’t involve essays. They involve thinking on your feet in response to your opponent’s statements. Your endless pontification doesn’t acknowledge anyone else’s opinion. It’s a soapbox without an audience. RESPOND TO XTIME OR FRDE’S statements with something that actually pertains to their statements. This refried bullshit is getting old.
Don’t you have any thoughts of your own?
So resources have nothing to do with production?
People who inherit wealth fit into your fundamental description how exactly?
Employees in a car factory get the profits, do they?
Your secondhand definitions are useless.
Have you learnt nothing in your life? :rolleyes:
You seem to assume that none of us on this board read newspapers or took economics. What is the point of posting this stuff?
Please look up ‘nationalised industries’, ‘mixed economies’ and ‘debate’.
Wonderful. :rolleyes:
Do you ever read what you post?
Why do you introduce ‘statism’?
Why is it the enemy of capitalism?
Your posts are the opposite of meaningful, useful and coherent.
You seem to confuse the US Constitution with capitalism.
I asked you earlier:
Which nations did you have in mind?
Papua New Guinea?
Bolivia?
Luxemburg?
San Seriffe?
Do justify this lonely claim.
I think they are machines that facilitate suicide. Mechanically.
Why did I not think of that?
We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously. A machinic assemblage, through its diverse components, extracts its consistency by crossing ontological thresholds, non-linear thresholds of irreversibility, ontological and phylogenetic thresholds, creative thresholds of heterogenesis and autopoiesis. The notion of scale needs to be expanded to consider fractal symmetries in ontological terms.
I think that settles it.
Sez you.