The Zeitgeist Movement - Give me your best shot.

Post Reply New Topic

How vague do you wanna be? Could you tell me what exactly what my link takes you to?

Do I have to embed the parts for the youtube vids of these podcasts so you won't feel threatened by "scams"?

So you're not able to answer these questions for yourself?

Nope. There's nothing in our materials that suggests that machines dictate what people get. You're confusing the decision process with the means to execute. My answer in this video explains this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acw449ZD9po[/youtube]

I do wish to pick apart paragraphs and think that others should too. Not knowing what we are actually discussing is a large part of why this debate never covers any new ground. With no written content to analyze ("pick apart"), those who have listened to the podcasts would simply be refuted with "you clearly didn't understand it" or "you are misquoting it".

I personally never listen to podcasts or watch movies to get information because I think it's a time wasting and inefficient way to get information as opposed to reading. This has nothing to do with not wanting to be challenged. I don't listen to the podcasts or watch the videos of those I already know I agree with either. I simply find it too distracting to hear somebody's accent and watch their mannersisms while at the same time analyzing the content. Analyzing the content is much more efficiently done when there is no "messenger" to get in the way of the message and when going back over a particular bit several times does not require hitting "rewind" and hoping to backtrack the right amount but rather simply re-reading a sentence.

I can understand not wanting to re-iterate something in writing over and over. But a better way to avoid that while also providing information in a usable format is to link to written materials rather than materials which must be viewed or listened to. That way, people can cut and paste excerpts to discuss.

I compleely agree that not knowing what you're discussing doesn't achieve anything productive and the fact that you prefer to only discuss this here without bothering to do your own research or even click some links to listen to some podcasts ensures this.



Considering that no-one has of yet listened to the podcasts and still come back with baseless attempts at refutation you have no examples on which to base that assertion on.



Well I'm sorry you cannot process that way. But I'm not gonna jump through hoops because of personal preference when the consideration for the information is absent.



Like I said, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops. If someone at some point puts up transcripts of my podcasts, then right there you will have the text to pick apart. I don't have to go to extra lengths coz of the refusal to listen to something which can be better understood intellectually and contextually due to the presence of the expression of tone of voice, intonation, pauses and exclamation that is completely absent in text. But that is the subjectivity that people who prefer to pick apart text rely on.

However, if its really text you so desperately need to process anything, then the TZM Blog is a place where advocates submit their essays, articles etc. A link for it is below and I don't want to hear any of the "link doesn't work" excuses.

TZM Blog

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 08 Jul 2012, 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Your video here:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Ve1uz6MCw&feature=player_detailpage#t=757s[/youtube]

Actually talks more about the issue. So, you mention "A cybernetic resource management system" at 12: 47, which would inevitably involve software.

You say "The machines manage resource allocation" at 12:51

You say "no one can reprogram the system" at 13:21

This clearly means that software will be managing resource allocation in the economic system, which is exactly what Burzum criticized, and you don't actually provide a software solution, only saying that people will help take care of that.

Given that "The machines manage resource allocation" at 12 minutes and 51 seconds is pretty much a direct quote from the video I cited, your denial comes off as dishonest. And "machines rather than people dictate resource allocation" is exactly your point if one plays that segment of the video, in which you are clearly talking about the RBEM.

And frankly, I still don't like filtering through audios to find the small bit of information I need.

He's sure as hell able to quote me answering those questions. I did it so that way he could accept my answer and not have your asinine complaining because he didn't answer some asinine questions.

Yes. And guess what manages similar systems today? Hampsters on wheels? lol



Yes. By means of the execution of what the surveys state. I don't understand how you can't get that through your skull.



Of course. Coz this refers to any possible hostile intent. When you order your shopping online for home delivery on the ASDA website, are you "reprogramming" the systems they use? No. I still don't understand how you can't understand this.



Awwwww, sorry this is so difficult for you, but don't worry, its part of information analysis to try new things, so congratulations for making the bold leap of actually listening.

If you paid any attention to the extensive quote from "The First Civilisation" which you have completely ignored, in fact you've ignored everything before 12:47 (I wonder why) then you wouldn't be making these claims. And yet here you are.



And yet you answered them. Poorly, but yet you still answered them. You see, you think that just coz you say something, somehow its true. Sorry, you're not god.

Repeatedly you have disappointed me in the lack of strength of your arguments and I don't feel there's any point in addressing you further until you can demonstrate a solid understanding of this train of thought. Sorry.

Various businesses responding to market conditions manage this information today. In many this is really just market conditions given the incentives every business has by being integrated into the system.


My point is that you flatly denied software, but now I've shown you were talking about software. That's dishonest, you quote me and say I am wrong, but I prove myself right by sifting through your own material. That's BS. Especially now that you're giving me crap on it.


You mean this quote? (starting about 3:40)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Acw449ZD9po&feature=player_detailpage#t=218s[/youtube]

I didn't reference it because it was irrelevant to the question "Does your RBEM proposal have software allocate resources?", and it is irrelevant to that question.

Now getting into this, am I particularly impressed by this "proof" of irrationality? No. The market for shirts is one involving a lot of strong aesthetic preferences and also likely even the shirt as a status good. Markets favoring status goods demanded by people is not this deep irrationality. Additionally, I hear that people tend to think the branded shirts have a higher quality, so I have a friend who likes to shop at those fancy clothing stores because even though he's worn the cheaper jeans, he thinks the fancy brand feels better.

I mean, a few cherry picked examples doesn't really prove a lot. The simple issue is that workers with more education and experience tend to have higher pay in the labor market. The simple issue is that when the Middle East is unstable, speculators drive up the price of oil trying to make sure that we have enough oil for any future catastrophe. The simple issue is that when costs of production increase, the costs of the goods increase. The simple issue is that when the costs decrease, and production methods are more commonly found, the goods become cheaper, like with computer electronics. And so on and so forth, and given that people and organizations do tend to be broadly rational(despite some of their unreasonable quirks), both in our experiences and in some experiments(such as the experimental economics developed by Vernon Smith), there is reason to consider markets rational. We may not like that rationality includes giving Katy Perry millions of dollars, but people value Katy Perry's contributions that highly given their preferences. I mean, we can talk about neoclassical modelling, but even if there are some behavioral aberrations, the neoclassical school of economics is not some ret*d fantasy to be debunked by some random quote by a biologist. The biologist "is not god" to use your terminology on this.


I answered them. Frankly, all of my answers were true. If you dispute the truth of any particular answer, you can try to debunk it. However, the fact that you are sniping from the sidelines, rather than actually going after my answers seems to indicate something to me. You'd actually just correct me if I am wrong. You actually already TRIED to correct me, but then I proved your correction was wrong with citations from your own freaking video, leading you to try to move the goalposts by saying that I didn't answer some other argument that was unrelated to my point. (and everybody watching our exchanges can see this)

Like I said, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops. If someone at some point puts up transcripts of my podcasts, then right there you will have the text to pick apart. I don't have to go to extra lengths coz of the refusal to listen to something which can be better understood intellectually and contextually due to the presence of the expression of tone of voice, intonation, pauses and exclamation that is completely absent in text. But that is the subjectivity that people who prefer to pick apart text rely on.[/url][/quote]

You see, if you know the source well enough it isn't really jumping through hoops, you could just seek out the relevant bits and quote it. If I were in your shoes I would be promoting this as clearly and easily as possible for others.

@AG Free renewable energy is not only possible and has been for a long time, but it is also sustainable and self sufficient. Given enough research it would be very easy to make generators for streets and zones rather than an elaborate and costly grid. YouTube search "Homemade Generator" for example. There are a lot of alternatives people have come up with which do not use fuel. Bear in mind these are only made by average Joes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIuBpPD- ... re=related this one I find particularly interesting.

As for other free renewable energy sources - they have been patented but silenced.

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm

That there is somewhat a testimonial to what I'm saying but doesn't cover any real noteworthy patents. So do a search for these:
Willhelm Reich Orgone Energy Motor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil#Related_patents Nicola Tesla's patents - A lot of his findings are still being held back in practice as he was able to attain such things as renewable energy, free and easy wireless technology (radio signals as well as electric, bet the battery and energy companies looooooved that idea!) It didn't stop there he came up with other ideas, here's a quote:



Stanley Meyer and his water fueled cell (that's right the water powered car guy). He was sued for fraud in his patent and died suddenly a few years later. Anyways you get the drill. If you want more info just ask.

When you can be brave enough to address ALL my points instead of only the ones you feel you can refute and not skirt around the issue, then we can talk.

When you look at the EXTENSIVE previous threads where I have humoured this individual, you will recognise the lengths I have gone to to explain this. I have provided the information. I shouldn't have to pander to these people like infants. It's not my problem if they have an aversion to audio.

Supporting the refusal of individuals to refer to the information itself in favour of endlessly debating it on a discussion forum does not raise the awareness or success of any intellectual exchange and is akin to a debate on evolution when one participant refuses to find out for themselves what evolution actually is.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 08 Jul 2012, 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Adam, just admit that you are a staunch support of the ZeitGeist Movement and the Venus Project but don't know so much about the inner workings and sociology / economics behind. You're reducing yourself to mudslinging, rhetoric and evasive manoeuvres which is counter productive to the cause you wish to promote. You want people to LEARN about how a resource based economy could work and discuss / help solve obstacles in its way, not get people to RIDICULE it!!

Look guys, I am so lost with the exchange between Janissy, AG, and Adam that if you just ask me any questions and put forward any doubts I can help answer some of your questions on a more neutral basis with pros and cons, possible solutions and such. Although I doubt the actuality of an RBE happening any time this century I do love the idea and am willing to talk about it a bit more in depth with information.

Why should I concede to such a baseless assertion? How much of my material and world view are you familiar with? Maybe the follwoing video will give you an insight into what I understand about this train of thought:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcaaKo4lx_A[/youtube]



*refers you to the numerous extensive threads that already exist on this forum*



Exactly. That is the problem with asking for questions about something on a discussion forum who's participants wish only to endlessly debate things without actually educating themselves on the subject.

And what exactly do you base the assertion of "Although I doubt the actuality of an RBE happening any time this century" on?

Overall, I very much appreciate the fact that you are open to this and wish to undertand it. As such I will do whatever I can to discuss this with you in as much detail as I can.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 08 Jul 2012, 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not sure I can trust these claimed homemade generators, especially in light of the common claim to have developed a perpetual energy machine. If I hear of a theory, then I can make sense of that, but not some youtube video. I mean, you say that these generators have no fuel, but where do they get the energy from? Solar power? Wind? They have to have a source, and this source has to make sense by existing laws of physics. If it doesn't make sense by those laws, this is probably as reliable as those quacks who claim to heal by spiritual power, and all of the rest of the nonsense you see spread around, whether it is Pentacostal exorcism, or crystal healing, or amazing mathematical notions that make no sense. (Like Marko Rodin's Vortex mathematics which makes it's own grand claims)

A website called "The Spirit of Maat" doesn't appear to be a credible source, especially given that the claims and the weak sources used to support it.

I can't find the Tesla quote. It doesn't sound plausible given the conservation of energy. (How do you manage to get this energy collected without consuming more energy in the process). Also, given that Tesla was going crazy later in his life, even developing the idea of a deathray, I don't think Tesla adds a lot of credibility.

Stanley Meyer's work is also considered deeply implausible given the conversation of energy. Breaking apart the molecule just to put it together necessarily loses energy by very well established laws of physics.

So, JanuaryMan, I see what you've presented, but I don't find a lot of it very credible at all. Most of these ideas seem to contradict what we know about physics, and our knowledge about physics is very well-established. Very little of this is very well sourced. I mean, the biggest reason to believe any of this is a desire to believe in conspiracy theories, but not actual evidence.

Honestly, I really am not interested in listening to seven hours of podcasts that may or may not prove insightful. Provide documentation, it is a much better medium of information when it comes to references.