The Zeitgeist Movement - Give me your best shot.

Post Reply New Topic

The link doesn't wo- just kidding, lol

I am not kidding when I say using oneself as a reference is not really valid though. I appreciate your passion for the subject in any case

I never said I was A reference. By definition no human being themselves can be. Because it is the INFORMATION that human beings learn, and re-output that is the reference. And you now have working access to my podcasts (and all the other things I reference) and I have also referred you to the TZM Blog. Come back when you are well-versed or at least in-part informed enough to ask credible and non-fallacious questions.

I see....so films about Zeitgeist from Peter Joseph (who has also done lectures for TZM and PV) are NOT representative of TZM? And there's something wrong with his expression as opposed to yours? Even though these and similar videos probably introduced you to the movement? Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww..............................

Now I'm definitely leaving this thread. Goodbye!

No. Zeitgeist: The Movie originally wasnt an internet film, but a live vaudvilian music/video performance by Peter Joseph in lower Manhattan in mid 2007. And anyone familiar with what Peter Joseph says about the Zeigeist film series will know they are his films. Granted they share a common thread, but that doesn't mean they're "representative" of TZM.



*facepalm* No, I never said there was anything "wrong" with his expression, I just said they weren't representative of TZM

And there's a difference between the Zeitgeist film series and my podcasts. My podcasts are information, not art.



Take care.

Well ladies and gents, that was an interesting session of exchanges. As you may know my next podcast will be the second part of my recent interview with Jim Phillips, but after that I will be devoting an entire podcast to expanding my answers on these criticisms.

Anyone got any more?

Your general reply to queries is to post links to your own podcasts or videos. How is that not self-referencing?



Sounds really fun, no joke



Okay there, professor. Though where I asked you any particular questions, let alone fallacious ones, is something I am curious about. My input here has been criticizing your practice of self-referencing. I already know what the answers to most questions will be: "Check out this podcast I made" or "read this blog entry" "watch this video"

Well you have a choice between me either providing direct answers in text on this very page, or a link to worked on answers that already exist on the record which also includes references to other information. I have already said that I'm not the reference point. Its the information that is. And since I prefer not to keep repeating myself I provide the links. Shall I provide links to other TZM materials so that I'm not "self-referencing"? Coz as far as I'm aware the link I provided for the TZM Blog has FAR more info than I currently have AND its in a text format. We know you scamps love info that is pure text.





Ok. And its all text, so have at it.



Appeal to mockery fallacy.



*refers you to the numerous occasions on this site where I have answered repeated questions*

Since you are criticising MY abilities I can refer to my own posts.

Now, howabout you stop foc ussing on me, who is irrelevant in the matter and start concentrating on the information. The messenger has been shot enough.

Now, let me first state that I'm not going to watch your podcast or watch other videos because quite frankly, I only take in information from written material. Secondly, AG murdered your entire movement in his first post, as the core argument of your movement appears to be that resources are not scarce, but yet are finite.

So, to me your movement appears to be based on contradictory and mutually exclusive premises. Resources are either finite or infinite, if they are finite they are automatically scarce and if they are infinite they are automatically abundant.

If Resources are not scare, IE abundant, then there would have to be enough resources to satisfy the desires of every single participant in the system.

However, if resources are scarce, IE not-abundant, then there would not be enough resources to satisfy the desires of every single participant in the system.

@ Adam: You claimed I have been asking you "fallacious questions", am not "in-part informed", am not "well versed". That seems to be a lot to deduce from absolutely no statements from me regarding the actual ZGM. Furthermore I have not even asked you any questions here. If you do not want your actions put in the spotlight, stop opening them to scrutiny by engaging in the exact behavior you are claiming should be avoided

Oh dear. For someone who prefers to deal with text you have not demonstrated a keen ability to read properly. I HAVE stated that resources are finite and not scarce. In fact if you read both my statements, and even AG's properly you'd know that. Neither myself, nor AG asserted that resources are "scarce" as opposed to finite. Scarcity is a mechanism that currently existing economic thinking is dependant upon. Scarcity is created through controlled restriction. That is why an RBE is not affected by these mechanisms because we have the technology and the resources to feed clothe educate and provide and access abundance of the necessities of life for all humanity at a high standard of living. Thus scarcity is overthrown.

Oh, and you think this is MY movement? lol

Sorry, but you have failed in your analysis of what I've been saying.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 08 Jul 2012, 2:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Then your participation on this thread has been completely irrelevant.

I wonder how long this thread will go on for in this manner. Anyone want to place any sportsmen bets?

Another appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Now how long do you want to waste our time talking about me thus perpetuating this ad hominem pursuit? If you only wanna discuss me and my communication skills, then that makes your input futile, dishonest and irrelevant, and as such, we're done here. I wish to discuss the train of thought that leads to a sustainable future for humanity.

Ok. So that brings me to my core philosophical objection to an RBE. It is centralised. I don't think a sustainable future for humanity should involve such centralisation, and there is no way to do an RBE without it. The history of empire, communism and multinationals all show how terrible things happen when power is centralised too much. In the case of a global RBE (and it would necessarily be global) that centralisation is global.

Unlike empires, communist countries and multinationals, the power of resource allocation in an RBE is said to be objective rather than based on the desires of those who hold the power. Although that sounds interesting in theory (although undesirable in its own way, as Awesomely Glorious was describing) in practice, the power would be in the hands of those people who wrote ther resource allocation software. I'm sure there would be attempts at transparency first, in the optimistic grace period prior to corruption that a new economy might have (it could happen, maybe ). However, an inevitable techno-elite would arise who would be able to game that transparency and run the world as they wanted, until the inevitable insurrgencies. The craftiness of hacker groups such as Anonymous shows me that people who could write such software could also either make it not so objective as all that, while seeming to be transparent, or it would be hacked. Do you think intelligent and capable hackers wouldn't try to hack into resource allocation software? I think they would find their way in. Or just become the ones who ran it in the first place.

I do not want to live under a One World Order. I think that centralisation is a dicey way to run things and needs to be balanced with a healthy dose of decentralisation, as democracies try to do. I am hardly alone in not wanting to live under a One World Order. There are terrible problems with how things currently are. But I think the solution to those problems will come from less centralisation, not more. This stance is where I got from educating myself, as you advise. Looking at a bunch of podcasts is not going to convince me that centralisation is the solution. It's a fundamental values difference, not a lack of information.

Sure you want to discuss it. If by discussion you mean "link to hours of yourself talking" in response to any queries and insult anybody who finds this tedious at best

I find it amusing the extreme lengths you have gone to insult me for not being able to load the initial link to your podcasts (where you disingenuously tried to paint AG as a liar for not being able to load it) and asking you to be reasonable with your referencing. Someone has a temper

Adam-Anti-Um has absolutely no problem making insinuations about others when they disagree with him or question anything he says, but the minute someone questions his intimidatory debate tactics it is ad hominem and futile input. lolinternet

Absolutely. It does need to be global. And that is why it is global. Its centralised in the sence of each respective city, but its all distributed. across all. As Doug Mallette descibed it, its like each city is like a node of a network of nodes that are each of their own accord centralised but they are only each parts of a larger distributed whole.



Said by who exactly? And where do you get the impression that human power structures exist?



Again, where in TZM's material states there will be human power structures? And who says that anyone who can, cannot optimise the functioning of the resource allocation processes? I've lost count of the amount of times I've said that the functioning of the system of an RBE is dependant upon how good society makes it through their own contributons to its betterment. Because people realise that what they do to better the systems also comes back to better their own lives. Self-interest becomes social-interest.



Ok, could you please explain exactly what the inherant reward for such behaviour would be in an RBE? I'm not talking about the current motivations due to current rewards, that is well known. I'm asking you what the reward is for current behaviours within an RBE value system.



Neither do I. like I said, an RBE has no human power structures. And no machine power structures. Power structures in all their possible formas are made obsolete and baseless by the very orientation of values and socio-economic methodology.



Absolutely. That's why an RBE is not centralised. To prove this I refer you to the complete absense of any mention or implication of a singular central computer that is the heart of everything in TZM's material.