Fellas... you guys think we're in a recession?

[Rich]

I only responded again against my better judgement because you brought my name into another post of yours after I offered you an olive branch.

I am sorry if you thought I was baiting you. I was trying to preface my reason for posting that graphic at that point in time, by referencing a comment mcmd had made about the dangerous size of the deficit and the amount of interest it was costing us, and a comment by you about Clinton being the root cause of our current problems. Honestly, I didn't go back and read all the posts in the thread to see that you were only specifically referring to the the derivatives meltdown as being Clinton's fault. I'm sorry if you thought I misrepresented your position.

That still does not excuse your behavior in attacking me personally for not posting my system rather than just correcting me on your position and continuing a debate on the issues.

I should be kicked off the forum? you just called us jerks for asking to see your system. I was merely responding to that. Maybe its you who should look in the mirror.

I never said you should be kicked off the forum. I said that I expect it will happen soon if you continue your pattern of behavior. I say this because I have witnessed it happen probably half a dozen times over the last four years. If someone can't stay on topic and routinely veers the conversation toward personal attacks on others, after a warning or two Tom will ban them from the forum. If you don't believe this is a real possibility, you might want to ask Dave about it.

In which case, Rich's system is mainly boring anyway... who wants to see it? Not me...:ROFL:

Careful there, Justin. I'm a sucker for reverse psychology. Must be in the genes, because my two-year old won't eat anything unless I tell her not to.

OTOH, my compliments to Rich and mcmd for providing a fine example of how to conduct a spirited debate without resorting to personal attacks, insults, and name-calling. I actually learned quite a bit from their discussion.

Thank you for that, Len.

If mods wish to delete this post, I understand. It just seemed like the time and place to write it.

Are you kidding? That is a great post . . . one of the all-time great posts! All of us would do well to step outside our boxes of preconceived reality every now and then. As you so plainly stated, we all-too-often see the world in black and white when it is really comprised of infinite shades of gray (with a splash of color thrown in here and there).

 

[MiTT]

Are you kidding? That is a great post . . . one of the all-time great posts! All of us would do well to step outside our boxes of preconceived reality every now and then. As you so plainly stated, we all-too-often see the world in black and white when it is really comprised of infinite shades of gray (with a splash of color thrown in here and there).

Agreed. As a Moderator myself, I wish I could have been as articulate.

All this talk of closing threads and bannishing folks would be irrelevant if everyone were to heed and apply it. I think I can safely say that neither Tom, Dave or myself EVER want to close down threads, much less send folks to the nether regions. It's pretty simple really - treat one another with respect and debate away.

 

[slowGEEZR]

mcmd - A most excellent post and precisely why I tend to avoid debates on religion and politics.

 

[repman]

It's difficult to describe what I'm about to write, so please bear with me. As a society we have been conditioned that there is a "right and wrong" or if you prefer, a "good and evil", and that the side we believe in is "right" and any other side taken is (by default) "wrong". We are taught to be competitive in nature, whether in school or at a job, etc. Put these two in-grained teachings together, and one can easily see how manufactured arguments can (and do) rapidly degenerate into ad hominem attacks.

In politics, this form of "logic" is called a "hegelian dialectic". It is, in part, designed to lead to false (or perhaps just simply not necessarily "true") conclusions, as the assumptions that we start with are put there for us and therefore, not our own.

Most start out with the assumption that our beliefs are "right". Most never step outside of the box they've been placed in to actually test those beliefs without the limitations of the "box". In sci-fi terms, think of it as the Matrix: those inside have no clue that they're in the "box" and therefore have no way of seeing 'the problem", let alone perceiving any way to stop being used as batteries, short of being unplugged from the Matrix itself.

I would urge all to test the assumptions of their deepest heart-felt beliefs to see if it is truth or only genius-level conditioning. When faced with a problem, see through the hegelian dialectic: do not accept that there's only one way to solve a problem, especially when the "choices" have been placed there for you to choose from. When watching media, see through the hegelian dialectic- fixing the type of problems we face will take more than what is being spoon-fed to us as "solutions".

Reducing the problem to Clinton, or Bush or Obama (or any other president you'd like to throw into the mix) is Hegelian, as it is based upon faulty assumptions- assumptions which we have so skillfully been conditioned to make that we don't even realize that they were placed there for us. We are sheep in front of master magicians. Only by critically thinking can we break out of our own Matrix.

If mods wish to delete this post, I understand. It just seemed like the time and place to write it.

I follow what you are saying ( I think) and while I agree there are shades of grey and we should be open to other stimuli and opinions that may sway us from our normal beliefs.

Do you believe that there are certain core values that people embrace over time and they become the things that they are made of and can't and should not be changed ( belief in God) as an example. Or do you believe all of someones beliefs should be up for evaluation at all times?

I want to make sure I am understanding you precisely, please help me if I am not

 

[Len44]

It's pretty simple really - treat one another with respect and debate away.

Exactly! But I must say that some of the name-calling clearly crossed the line.

Hopefully, where appropriate, posters will recalibrate the general tenor of posts and find ways to disagree that avoid inappropriate comments going forward.

mcmd: Great Post! Thanks!

 

[User211]

mcmd's post is great. But it has already happened en mass during the 60's. Peace, love and anti-government protests. The majority of this was fuelled by the use of LSD as a recreational drug, and people like Tim Leary, John Lennon, Andy Warhol & Co, The Stones and the hippy movement as a whole.

But primarily, I believe it all started as a result of the use of LSD/mushrooms/STP and whatever other concoctions the psychedelic chemists were capable of brewing up at the time.

These hallucinogens genuinely do re-wire the brain, and make you think outside of the box, both whilst you're on the stuff, and to a some extent afterwards as well. The problem with this is that the authorities realise that this kind of clever, de-programmed thinking isn't playing ball with their own goals i.e. control of the masses. Hence the outlawing of such "clever" chemicals. TBH, I believe even humble marijuana is "too clever" for the average polltician's liking, which is one of the reasons why the world over the drug is generally persecuted.

Not strictly on the topic of the thread, but very relevant to mcmd's post. The point was simply to illustrate what happens when we all decide that politics stinks and we know better than the people we elected to rule us in the first place.

Humans, hey? What a bunch of unstable people we are. But it is our inherent instability that causes the necessary deviations to bring about change and therefore make progress. It's all good, so to speak

One ironic thing is many of today's politicians will have been directly involved in the 60s counter culture anyway.

 

[User211]

Thinking outside of the box, maybe it wasn't the chemicals of the 60s that elicited such extreme reactions to authority and the rejection of its values. Maybe it was more to do with the promotion of them by those mentioned in my previous post i.e. the deliberate creation of a counter-culture. Tim Leary was definately guilty of it - whether you regard it as a good thing or not.

The trouble with thinking too much outside the box, is you can never be too sure about what is right, and what is wrong, and the only way to "get your head back together" is to live with the values you were programmed with as you grew up. This, in fact, is the easy cop out most of those who have "stepped outside the bounds of normal thinking" eventually choose to adhere to.

And most became the person they warned themselves against. It really is all good.

 

[Rich]

And most became the person they warned themselves against. It really is all good.

That's funny, Justin but also very true. Some of the most extreme liberals of the 60's are some of the more conservative people today. The mother of a friend of mine is a prime example. She was extremely liberal when we were kids. She was heavy into astrology and all kinds of way-out ideas. Now she is a die-hard tea partyer and ultra-conservative.

I imagine the majority of people in the '60's counter-culture movement were just lemmings themselves, following in lock-step with the leaders and true visionaries of the movement without really thinking much about the concepts that were the basis of the movement. Most were probably just in it for the sex and drugs.

 

[Jimna]

fuelled by the use of LSD as a recreational drug, and people like Tim Leary, John Lennon, Andy Warhol & Co, The Stones and the hippy movement as a whole.

Dont forget Ken Kesey, Justin. He was the left coast's counterpart to Leary, just in a laid back Californian kind of way.

...and the Merry Pranksters claimed Leary was no fun to party with!

 

[twich54]

Most were probably just in it for the sex and drugs.

easy big fella..............I resemble that remark !!

 

[mcmd]

I follow what you are saying ( I think) and while I agree there are shades of grey and we should be open to other stimuli and opinions that may sway us from our normal beliefs.

Do you believe that there are certain core values that people embrace over time and they become the things that they are made of and can't and should not be changed ( belief in God) as an example. Or do you believe all of someones beliefs should be up for evaluation at all times?

I want to make sure I am understanding you precisely, please help me if I am not

Repman,

Well, yes we live in a world of grey. But it goes beyond that. The hegelian dialectic is often explained as "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The idea that we start with is the thesis. Any idea contrary to the thesis becomes the anti-thesis, with the outcome being the synthesis. It inherently requires a conflict so that a "resolution" can be "found". I merely think its important that we (as a society) become more aware of the subtle manipulation inherent to the dialectic, because when a certain "solution" (synthesis) is desired, the thesis and anti-thesis components can be easily manufactured (liberals/conservatives, TEA partiers/NAACP, democrats/republicans, etc.) and promoted by media (MSNBC/Fox) for us all to get incensed over.

Thus, while we are at war against each other, the synthesis (desired "solution") is implemented. We never had a real choice, only that which was manufactured for us to believe we had!

It is obvious that the dialectic has religious applications, but even I am not brave enough to tackle that one in public, except to say that belief in God, etc., to my way of thinking, is more a matter of faith, rather than something that can logically be tested.

 

[mcmd]

The trouble with thinking too much outside the box, is you can never be too sure about what is right, and what is wrong, and the only way to "get your head back together" is to live with the values you were programmed with as you grew up. This, in fact, is the easy cop out most of those who have "stepped outside the bounds of normal thinking" eventually choose to adhere to.

User211,

I think it's interesting and very telling that your response used the terms "programming" and "deprogramming". Be truthful, has anyone ever stopped to really consider why they call it "television programming"? If the TV itself isn't being programmed, what, or more appropriately, WHO is being programmed? The sober is answer is YOU.

And while computers are certainly programmed, we, as their users, are being programmed as well. Consider social networking as a concept for a moment: a generation of humans are being programmed to live their lives more virtually than within the physical world". Many feel their virtual "lives" are more fulfilling than they have in the 'real world". This should concern us- what are the long term repercussions of this societal/global programming?

I agree it's difficult to "see the box" while within the limitations and parameters of the box. So, in order to begin to view some of its periphery, start by merely becoming aware of the manufactured conflicts that we are told face us. Sociologists have long studied what motivates humans, and it's almost cliche to say that the greatest motivator is either fear or greed. Consider life insurance sales- it's not sold to the person who's life is being insured, but to the beneficiary.

All kidding aside, fear has its own ends. Fear of a nuclear Iran, fear of terrorists, fear of global warming, fear of losing your job. Fear warps our perceptions of reality and is used to rationalize all sorts of things we would normally never consider. Start with becoming aware of its use against you as an individual.

Then consider the dialectic. A "solution" will likely be proffered to assuage the "fear of the moment". You likely didn't have a choice in the fear addressed, nor in its proposed "solution".

 

[Rich]

easy big fella..............I resemble that remark !!

Yep, I can picture Dave in the '60s, with his long hair in a pony-tail, wearing a scruffy beard, ripped blue jeans and a tie-dye t-shirt, and smoking on a big Stogey (filled with a different kind of tobacco than the ones he smokes these days). I can definitely picture it.

 

[User211]

User211,

I think it's interesting and very telling that your response used the terms "programming" and "deprogramming". Be truthful, has anyone ever stopped to really consider why they call it "television programming"? If the TV itself isn't being programmed, what, or more appropriately, WHO is being programmed? The sober is answer is YOU.

I've always subscribed to the view that we as humans are merely bio-computers. The brain is just a massively parallel bio-computer - full of bugs that cause us to make mistakes/get things wrong/behave bizarrely. Some bio-computers are better than others - higher spec'd with more RAM/processing speed and a more comprehensive instruction set.

If you look at it this way, you can see that we are all merely programming each other via the apprropiate bus - TV, the internet, verbal communication, television etc.

I don't think, however, that TV is out to get you, for the most part. But it is controlled by the government to some significant extent, especially in the realm of news programming. And as you correctly identify, fear is comprehensively used to control - with all the social implications that apply to you if you do not follow the rules.

Thankfully, the media isn't fully conntrolled enough to prevent exposure of mis-behaving politicians, at least in the USA and UK. So there is some freedom - it's just that most of us aren't free. Slave to the wage, I'm afraid.

Not sure about the profundity of this - it all seems pretty obvious to me. I just felt like typing something into one of these social networking sites to fill up the whole in my empty life

 

[mcmd]

Ouch! My brain hurts and it's all my own fault... :stop:

Gonna spin some tunz now, maybe have an adult beverage... My thanks to everyone for playing along at home. :music: