Z-Day 2010 - "Be the change we want to see in the world

Post Reply New Topic

I went through the FAQ. It had no useful, concrete information, and in fact Master_Pedant has asked you a very specific question about the FAQ that you have so far ignored. I find this quite telling. Look at AG's last post; it's pretty much accurate. After determining that arguing the FAQ would be a waste of time (it dodges every question and gives no relevant answers) I just decided to go for an outright refutation. I only needed one piece of information about the Venus Project to make that refutation. There is no problem whatsoever in using other knowledge I possess in that refutation, and I only provided sources when you demanded them. What I am asking you to explain is how exactly this "cybernated resource management" would work, and I skipped the inevitable equivocation by demonstrating right off that it simply can't work.

In any case, the results of this thread are quite clear. It has been demonstrated that you are wrong, and further it has been demonstrated that you are unreasonable. There is nothing more to do in this thread, so I'm done now.

Thankyou so much for your time. The fact that you disagree doesn't really matter to me. I am glad that I have captured your attention for so long. Even if your intention was to merely show me up as a fraud. Take care now.

Well I don't. So are you telling me it takes less physical energy to sit and watch a video than it does to formulate opinions and projections and physically type them out? Even if you have voice input software, does it take more energy to vocalise your posts than watch a video? Something tells me you are trying to cover for your unwillingness to consider any of the evidence you criticise.

Like I said, time is seperate to energy in this instance. You cannot wriggle your way out of that. And it is TIME that is the expenditure when it comes to watching videos, and typing. That is unless you are a narcoleptic and you have to physically exert yourself when watching evidence that you do not wish to consider. lol.

I can't believe I am explaining this to you.



Funny, coz THAT is exactly my point when you try and criticise The Venus Project. How ironic. But of course, the bully doesn't want to show that he is a bully, does he?

Mental energy. When watching a video I have to both listen to it and watch it, and process the matter. This isn't a matter of voice, and frankly, I am used to typing things. Additionally, I doubt the video is good, at all... This means that I am further drained by the fact that I have to keep my attention on the video when I don't want to, and that I will continue to call the video stupid.


Umm.... ok, but as Orwell stated, all that needs to be wrong is one thing. You really don't have a point. That's something that I've noticed over a significant period of time of your ideas. In this case we just have an overblown induction. In my case, I have a good background of both knowledge on crazy ideas and knowledge about economics, I know what I am talking about to a greater extent.

As it stands though, this wouldn't be so "bully-ish" and personality driven if you were good at arguing your point. Then it wouldn't be "AG, you are such a bully", and instead be "your point has already been rebutted thoroughly here and here, and your criticism runs into problem X, Y, and Z". As it stands, I'd have to agree with Orwell's last argument on the matter. It has basically shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Venus Project is on weak grounds.

Does that Zeitgeist video explain....

1) What algorithm will work for resource allocation?
2) What scientists, engineers, software engineers, geologists, green technologists, computer programers, computer scientists, etc. have reviewed the project and determined it "technically feasible"?

If so, since you're an expert in the matter, you ought to be able to summarize the information here. I really want that FAQ question answered.

Ok, so you can waver the rules, just because you consider yourself better than anyone else? What the hell is that? And even if someone did have a good point, you would constantly ignore it anyway and you would constantly state "you're not giving me anything reasonable" SO YOU ARE SAYING YOU CAN REWRITE THE RULES. You are stating that if you don't agree with someone, you can talk to them however you see fit.

Coz as far as your perception is concerned, and your reluctance to consider anyone's ideas beyond your own, ensures that you will ALWAYS consider the views of others as "unreasonable".

That is being a bully.

But "outside the frame of reference" I guess you mean "outisde the laws of logic and mathematics". The point is that you and other Vensusites repeat the mantra of Jacques word for word - except that isn't substantive. Jacques doesn't explain the details and neither do his evangelists - at least he has the cortesy to coat his hard to swallow obscrantism with some nice pictures.

The idea isn't "out there" so much as it is "empty". It's bascially the assumption that "technology" can create an ever evolving society of well-being. And yes, its Utopian, even if a dynamic Utopia. Nobody has designed or theorized how this supercomputer organizer of the economy will work - and you're pretty sort on ideas.

On a side note - AG certainly isn't confined by narrow frames of references. An existential nihilist who denies the existence of anything except atoms is certainly thinking outside the conventional wisdom.

Well, I waste my energy on ideas that are more worthwhile. I feel terrible if I do. I only find benefit in ideas that actually seem good and valuable, and this isn't one of those. It isn't a matter of a frame of reference that is short of a painful debilitation either.


Do you mean "inhibited"?


No, it really doesn't. It does show how willing you are to interpret me in uncharitable manners.


Hunh? If something is necessary, then how is it an error.

Additionally, you haven't shown errors. What you have done is tried to argue for the idea of "money as debt", but the thing is that you don't know any economics, meaning that you can't meaningfully engage the ideas that are mainstream on how the economy works.


That's a slogan. It isn't something you have even come close to showing.


Um.... I don't even know what you are trying to say.

You don't *have* good points, as if you did, you could actually have engaged in attacking Orwell's attempted refutation rather than attempting to dismiss it as a "projection". You at the very least could have gone into some philosophical tangent on what the problem is with Orwell's argument, and a good philosophical tangent rather than just saying "knowledge evolves".


No, at worst you can only say that I am unwilling to consider *your* idea. Not that I am bad at engaging ideas and considering them in general. I've considered a lot of ideas over time, and frankly this lacks so much meat to it, that it is not even worth calling an idea. It's a slogan, maybe a set of slogans put together, but it has no substance.


It's not even that related to the concept of being a bully.

*sigh* Ok, fine, I should probably stop bothering with this. It seems to be a waste of my time.

By the guilty pleasure one gets from refuting a vague, dyed-in-the-wool faith head and true believer is surely compensatory for the time?

Look in a freaking mirror. I presented an iron-clad logical proof that the Venus Project is impossible. You still have refused to respond to the content of that proof. Did it cause cognitive dissonance when you tried to read it? Try again. It's a valid proof.

You can't refute nothingness.

Shall I go back and count the number of posts you have submitted to this forum on both of the threads "wasting" your time and energy on this subject?



No, hebitated. It means stupified. Look it up. Have I just taught you a new word?




LOOK WHO'S TALKING!! !! !!

[quoteHunh? If something is necessary, then how is it an error.][/quote]

Because you fail to consider this direction, you will not see what I mean.



And for the same reasons, you cannot correctly criticise The Venus Project.



The fact that you dismiss everything you disagree with proves that you won't ever be able to say that I have shown anything. A man who refuses to watch a film, cannot criticise it.



And it doesn't look like you ever will. That is your choice. And not my problem.



Of course not, coz I don't play the game that you want me to play. Your game is unwinnable.



That gives you no excuse to attack me personally. That is a breach of the rules no matter how you slice it.



That is because as far as you are concerned you have done nothing wrong.



Time, energy, make up your mind which one it is! lol.

This "game" is called "defend your position with a rational argument." It's only unwinnable if your idea is complete BS.

I thought you were leaving. It seems the only one full of s**t is you.