Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 124
The Zeitgeist MovementPage 6 of 11    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
>>> In this case, I wanted to give Jip the opportunity to do that

Na-uh. He's your problem now- I'm sick of his attitude. Let him fester with his own self-righteous zeal. I'm sick of being talked down to because he doesn't think it's necessary to treat people with respect- something I'm sure everyone who has the audacity to disagree with his assumptions have discovered by now...

....Its little wonder to me why he came here looking to discuss this topic- wherever he came from, people were tired of his shit, no doubt, and the same thing that happened there is happening here- people stopped talking to him, and like all trolls, he went away.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 125
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/7/2012 2:06:14 PM
Oh well...Live & learn...I have to thank him for giving me a bit of a soap-box to rant on.

Hey...Did you notice how I didn't bite your bait in my "Privatization of Science" thread?...I must be mellowing with age eh?
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 126
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/7/2012 2:23:50 PM
I was pretty impressed, yea. But i mean, come on- you couldn't think of ANYTHING wrong with government funded science? I'm not saying privatization was better in that regard(in fact, I said very little in that thread)- but NOTHING is wrong with government funded science?

Still, I completely agree with you on this thread- rights are more important, by far- and a system like that is a tyrants wet dream. If I could "like" things in these forums, your comments would have been liked.........
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 127
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/7/2012 10:54:12 PM
>>>Wow, such arrogance in you dude.

Yea its a shame i treat my superiors in such a way, but i can't help it.

Best of luck talking down to anyone else though
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 128
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/7/2012 10:57:19 PM
>>> Likewise with you, I will change my mind on things, that is if you can change my mind with sound logic and evidence.

If only that were true- I got a better chance getting a Christian to question their beliefs than you pal- you have no doubts in your absolute authority over all matters, and reject all knowledge that says otherwise...
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 129
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/10/2012 1:28:17 PM
>>>I find it interesting that you cannot be bothered to listen to anything that would clear this issue right up for you in a matter of minutes, and instead prefer to endlessly debate with me on the topic

Because people want to exchange thoughts and ideas- not be handed homework. If you cannot express your stance effectively, that doesn't mean that people should have to listen to you talking to your buddies, or your idol talking to a crowd. You should be able to express yourself in the same medium as everyone else here.

I find people who endlessly refer to internet videos and recordings to have no real incite in the topic. Case in point, look at any "conspiracy theorist" and "UFO believer"- they offer no substance, and cannot back up any of their claims- instead, they hide behind other peoples videos, so they are not responsible for the content of the message.

>>>while not getting anywhere with it.

And I suspect that highly has to do with you and how you treat people.

>>>In my past experience, that is the sign of someone who doesn't wish to understand, and instead wishes to pointlessly argue over it.

And this doesn't explain you at all? You don't wish to understand Goodman's position- you just want to pointlessly argue with him.

And look at that- he's already planning on stop talking to you. I wonder how many times that'll happen before you start to see a pattern....
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 130
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/10/2012 10:50:40 PM
>>> If I were to go onto a thread to discuss quantum physics, I better damn hope that I know my stuff about it,

Certainly if there's a misunderstanding, I can depend on the people in the thread to describe to me why they feel there is a misunderstanding- not simply assert their superiority, and tell me I can't grasp what they're saying.....

>>>It does if you cannot accept my explanations

Why does anyone have to accept your explanations? You don't accept anyone elses...

>>>So providing links to support your position is now a cardinal sin?

Not at all- but Goodman made it clear- he doesn't want to read your links, watch your videos, or listen to your podcasts.

You should respect that and express your beliefs in THIS medium- not scoff and claim he can't handle what you have to say.

>>>. I know that if you don't want to be convinced (which you don't) then you won't.

And the same is true for you. You want to believe the Zeitgeist Movement is true, and any kind of criticism won't change your thoughts on the subject.

>>>I actually do understand, and agree with a great deal of what Goodman has stated.

Lol and yet, you keep lecturing him, like anyone else foolish enough to attempt to open a discourse with you. You claim to agree with what he has to say- but if you look at what is said, all you do is criticism his beliefs- even going so far as to challenging his definition of words as insufficient.

>>> Or do you just wanna keep criticising me?

I want you to treat people with respect. I see people keep attempting to converse with you, and within 2 or 3 posts, they keep giving up on you- you honestly think that's because you are just so wise that you are blowing peoples minds?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 131
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/11/2012 12:46:09 AM
Adam:


If I were to go onto a thread to discuss quantum physics, I better damn hope that I know my stuff about it,


(hehe I don't even read your posts anymore I just read Jip's replies, see if anything has changed)

People on a quantum physics thread arn't trying to get people to believe in quantum physics, they are just bullsh!ting/talking shop.

Look here is the bottom line man:

1. You're movement needs supporters, which is why you are here trying (very unsuccessfully) to convince us that your "RBEM" should be emplemented as soon as possible for the good of all humanity, and that we should join your movement and help you with this endeavor. 

2. You are haveing zero success, so far, at convincing any of the posters here of anything. The posters here already have their own ideas and have told you what they need from you in order to be convinced and ultimately won over to your cause. It is not up to me or the other people on this forum to convince themselves that you are right (you should be thanking the "RBEM" gods that we are even still paying attention to you). No one here or anywhere else in the world is under any obligation to even listen to you, yet knowing this, you still refuse to do your part of the work (our job being to druge through you pedantic posts) and pony up some solid evidence or credible arguments. These arguments from you don't even have to be perfect/without flaw for us to even begin to take you seriously and start to ingaging you in discourse, but your arguments do need to demonstrate to us that you have a solid grasp on the majority of the variables involved - and this stuff needs to come from you, in you own words, as Jip said we are not interested in home work (at least at this point, if you do a good job with some of your arguments you might start to see people starting to take you up on your homework assignments). Also since you are trying to convience other people that their ideas are wrong, you also need to demonstrate that you have a solid grasp on the ideas that these people are using to rebut you with.

3. I've said it before but man does this one need it's own section. People are under no obligation to listen to a damn thing you have to say. You should be thanking the people, who have listened to you so far (like poor Jip, he's your biggest supporter so far) for taking the time out of their day, and ultimately life, to grace you with their attention. You have made an epic fail in this department. You are not preaching to the quire. You are trying to win votes, and this is a difficult task. There are a lot of very smart people in this forum, which means that retoric and propaganda are going to do very little to aid you in your cause. Another thing, writing a lot does not equal "a good argument", espesially when you are trying to hold the attention of your reader. You should be trying to make your points as quickly and concisely as possible, and using up as little of your readers time as possible, at least initially, when you start to feel things sway in your favor then you can start to play around a little.

Ok, so, them's the rules of the game. You don't have to abide by them but I guarantee that you're not going to be successful unless you do.

One last thing:

If you respond to this post, you are already screwing up, so I'd advise against it. These were just some friendly tips, that I thought you were in desperate need of. I am in no way interested in what your thoughts are concerning the subject of this post.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 132
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/11/2012 3:10:08 PM
Jiperly:

Hay Jip man, just let this thing fade away. I'm tired of seeing it on the front page.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 133
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/11/2012 8:37:46 PM
Some questions posed on this thread have gone without a proper response. The lack of discussion might be attributed to broad nature of the questions, which is understandable because my questions are broad as well. Another reason may be that we are all questioning, as in looking for answers, instead of attempting to openly brainstorm possible solutions. If nothing else it’s a great opportunity to focus the questions so that we can look more deeply at how things, relative to those questions, work currently and how could it work in a non-monetary global community.

So let’s see if there is any interest in breaking down some of the broader questions. I think it’s important to remember that these questions require the help of as many people as possible, because this is where having knowledge of how something works is a valuable commodity. Additions to the discussion may not be answers but rather information about how thinks currently work.

I’m not trying to direct or take charge of this discussion but I’m interested in it and would like to see it develop. As some people have already mentioned, there is a lot intellect and a lot of diversity in these threads and it would be exciting to SHARE something (a strange new vision of the future) instead of debating from opposite ends of a spectrum. Consider it an intellectual challenge.

Broad topics include:
Bill of Rights, or facsimile, and legal structures that would enforce/uphold it.
Economy (a reciprocal system in which goods and services have an exchange value)
Infrastructure (Resources - material & human)
Current inhibiting factors (Governments & other powerful forces)

The vision encompassed in this thread is a utopian one in every sense of the word, unless the hard questions have solutions.

While I have specific questions about each of the topics, I will only pose one for now and let others try to focus on their own more specific questions.

In the U.S., the Bill of Rights was not originally suppose to be a part of our federal Constitution. The Constitution was meant to provide transparency for the people into the rules that govern the federal government. The States were sovereign and as sovereign entities they were to have their own Constitutions which provided the rules of conduct for the people under that state’s rule of law. But it was argued that if the states were to be ‘united’, there had to be broad rights granted to every U.S. citizen which the states could not supersede. Thus, in the U.S. we have certain inalienable rights.

On the grand scheme of things some kind of bill of rights or human rights is absolutely necessary. Within large social groups (communities), ‘being at liberty to act’ is a term that denotes some limitation on freedom to act. In other words, there are some things on which we do not have liberty to act. As we extend the utopian vision from nation to nation, we have to expect that ‘Culture’ will be the equivalent of ‘states’ as used in the example above. We will have to have a very broad bill of rights that can encompass the diversity within cultures so that we don’t lose the diversity that has been so valuable to human progress.

So my question is: what kind of rights would every world citizen be equally entitled to without destroying diversity or infringing too greatly on individual’s ‘liberty to act’?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 134
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/11/2012 11:14:26 PM
Where I think the Zeitgeist movement is making its primary mistake is in basing itself on an artificial construction (a man-made model) of society. That just makes it an ideology which like any ideology can easily be exploited & perverted to serve somebody's interests. I see a lot of good things in it, but I see a lot of good things in many ideologies which fell prey to the greed & fear of the human animal.

It's my feeling that human society should evolve naturally and not to any particular plan. It should be a chaotic fractal construction such as are found in nature. Fractals are easy to build (being based on a few simple "rules") and can grow naturally into the most apparently complex and beautiful of structures. One need look no farther than the nearest tree or snowflake to see what I mean. Wouldn't it be nice to build all of human society as a fractal? I thought so then (when I was an idealistic dreamer) and I think so now (I'm actively trying to build one).

It incorporates a lot of what emotionalheat mentioned:

1) Bill of rights (and obligations): unwritten natural law
2) legal structures that would enforce/uphold it.: the people of the community in de jure courts/tribunals
3) Economy: Free & fair trade in an open market based on social credit principles (hopefully, but not necessarily leading to a gift economy)
4) Infrastructure: as required by the communities concerned (non-renewables exploited ONLY by necessity)
5) Current inhibiting factors: The current paradigm of governance. (The people are the true government and the most powerful force of all…make them as self-governing as possible)


So my question is: what kind of rights would every world citizen be equally entitled to without destroying diversity or infringing too greatly on individual’s ‘liberty to act’?

The inherent rights of any rational, compassionate sentient being.

I should comment at this point that ingeneral people are more concerned with selling an ideology they might be sold on than in introspectively searching for and/or proposing solutions to the common problems. A case in point is a thread I started to try to address the problems created by the privatization of science. Maybe one or two people gave any real thought to what we can do to correct the problem and the spectators have nothing to propose or add to the discussion. Net result…the thread is dying. That thread is an indication of what is going to happen to the human race…our apathy & laziness is going to kill us all. As far as I'm concerned, collectively speaking, we are getting exactly what we deserve.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 135
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 5:06:13 AM

tell me exactly what kinds of corruptions will emerge, in addition to what exactly rewards, incentivises and reinforces said corruption in an RBEM.

I'd rather see YOU do that. You should be able to look for the flaws in your own model for society.Only by anticipating them can you (hopefully) modify the model to "design" them out. I'm concerned that you appear see TZM rather uncritically as the perfect panacea for the problems of humanity.

Only by giving something the "torture test" can we be reasonably sure it will "take a licking and keep on ticking"


And can you elaborate more on why you think that a system which could be termed a "Natural Law Economy" which is based around the functioning of the biosphere we live on, or the functioning of the well functioning human body, can be considered an "artificial construction"?

It's still in the "vision" stage isn't it? If it wasn't an artificial construction, you would by now see the embryos of such communities everywhere. You might see evidence of the previous failed attempts at such communities that died by reason of the inherent flaws in the model at the time. In short, you would see strong evidence of its natural evolution, since that's the way natural constructions appear…They evolve; they aren't designed.

If you are counting on The existing system to see TZMs rationality and suddenly incorporate it unaltered into a "New Improved System", or if you are expecting everyone to suddenly drop the existing system in favour of a new untested one that looks good on paper, I think you are being naive if not downright unrealistic. In either event, you are not being critical enough of the model you are tying to sell (and you are trying to sell it to some very critical people who have a lot of sales resistance)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 136
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 8:38:00 AM

You have made the claim here that corruptions will emerge.

I have no recollection of making any such assertion, but will accept upon proof of your claim that I did. Kindly provide an exact quote of what you took to be my claim.


I notice you are trying to tell me what's going on inside my head.

False; I merely mentioned a CONCERN I had based on my observations.


How is that relevant to socioeconomics?

The same way it is relevant to any system, physical or not. Flaws or poor design will wreck it. It applies to socioeconomics as well as it ever did to Timex watches.


I asked you to show how a system that is aligned with natural laws is an artifical construction.

And I answered you.


You have failed to even address this because you hopefully have realised that an RBEM is not an artificial construction.

An acronym isn't an artificial construction? LOL

Seriously, the model itself is an artificial construction that appears here as a utopian vision only awaiting the days when its current unmodified model becomes a fait accompli.


I wouldn't harp on so damn much about natural laws if it was artificial, would I?

Probably not. Where I see an error is in your dogmatic, uncritical approach. You have to learn to be more critical of your own assessments. I think you'll find that approach a lot more useful & satisfying than getting everyone else to do your work for you so you can debate with them. This thread could then become a proper discussion instead of a dogged debate.


And you have also displayed a failure to acknowledge the existance of earthship communities, open-source ecology and transition town groups as an overall "embryonic" stage of the necessary TRANSITION, not "sudden" move as you have later on fallaciously tried to infer.


Au contraire. The things you mention are exactly the sort of things I'm trying to encourage and that I see happening. The only real difference between your attitude and mine is your apparent belief that all the issues have been worked out in advance and that the current trend will eventually become the current vision. My "vision" is more free-flowing than that, and the work I do is more in the nature of letting nature take its course by minimizing interference & oppression by the current artificial & corrupted system. As far as what things will eventually become, well (I was interrupted at this point and lost the point I was trying to make…sorry.)


For example if you evolved a traffic system in the same manner that biological life evolves you would have such an elaborate, inefficient and sub-optimal traffic system that you would HAVE to design those evolutionary flaws out.

These "kludges of nature" are the natural process of evolution. "Forcing" evolution to make for a cleaner end result is probably going to result in a final product that is not as well adapted as it should be to the circumstances to which it will be exposed. This strikes to the heart of my objection of "designing the future." it is the source of our difference in perspective.


You are creating a strawman argument, because no-one in TZM has EVER implied that anything will happen "suddenly". We have referred to a TRANSITION. Transitions are not by their very definition a "sudden" notion.

Good to hear…I haven't looked deeply into TZM for the simple reason that I assumed it to be a drawing-board design for the future.


Well right there you should recognise the cognitive dissonance. Coz I'm not selling anything. :)

In that case, you're like Jip & me & just like arguing for the hell of it.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 137
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 11:01:13 AM
lol that truly was a very patient attempt at talking reason dukky- you did a great job, but you cant convince a zealot....

i sincerely hope that the person you oringally commented to(not adam) does respond to your comments tho- they seem to be fair criticisms to make in response to her comments....

also i noticed this;


I really appreciate mature discussion. :)



I don't bow to misinformed, uniformed, ignorant, logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest claims


Took him less than ten hours and 4 responses to go from calling you mature to calling you names....
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 138
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 3:21:18 PM

i sincerely hope that the person you oringally commented to(not adam) does respond to your comments tho- they seem to be fair criticisms to make in response to her comments....


I'll second that.


Took him less than ten hours and 4 responses to go from calling you mature to calling you names....


Well, the only thing I have to say to that is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4q3leE5Uw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 139
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 4:02:57 PM
^^^you first^^^
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 140
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 10:43:24 PM

It's my feeling that human society should evolve naturally and not to any particular plan. It should be a chaotic fractal construction such as are found in nature. Fractals are easy to build (being based on a few simple "rules") and can grow naturally into the most apparently complex and beautiful of structures. One need look no farther than the nearest tree or snowflake to see what I mean. Wouldn't it be nice to build all of human society as a fractal? I thought so then (when I was an idealistic dreamer) and I think so now (I'm actively trying to build one).


Sounds interesting and I think I’ve seen examples while surfing the net one night. In different parts of the world some people are building their homes in natural settings out of and IN natural material. For example, someone started by using a huge tree as an anchor, then they found a cave near the tree and extended the home to the cave and inside of the cave. In their home they have kept some of the fauna and even trees. They have solar panels for electricity. It’s amazing. Another one was built IN huge trees, almost all the furniture was even made from natural material from the area and sometimes even carved out of a tree – nice cabinets and closest that way and it doesn’t seem to hurt the trees.

Is that what you’re talking about?

I was happily surprised that someone else had thought along the same lines as I did about the Bill of rights, legal structures, etc. and I liked your aditions, like - (non-renewables exploited ONLY by necessity).


It incorporates a lot of what emotionalheat mentioned:

1) Bill of rights (and obligations): unwritten natural law
2) legal structures that would enforce/uphold it.: the people of the community in de jure courts/tribunals
3) Economy: Free & fair trade in an open market based on social credit principles (hopefully, but not necessarily leading to a gift economy)
4) Infrastructure: as required by the communities concerned (non-renewables exploited ONLY by necessity)
5) Current inhibiting factors: The current paradigm of governance. (The people are the true government and the most powerful force of all…make them as self-governing as possible)
The inherent rights of any rational, compassionate sentient being.

Can you provide more detail about how you envision – open market based on social credit principles – as working? It sounds interesting.


I should comment at this point that ingeneral people are more concerned with selling an ideology they might be sold on than in introspectively searching for and/or proposing solutions to the common problems. A case in point is a thread I started to try to address the problems created by the privatization of science. Maybe one or two people gave any real thought to what we can do to correct the problem and the spectators have nothing to propose or add to the discussion. Net result…the thread is dying. That thread is an indication of what is going to happen to the human race…our apathy & laziness is going to kill us all. As far as I'm concerned, collectively speaking, we are getting exactly what we deserve.


I’m sorry to see that the ‘privatization of science’ thread didn’t take off. It’s a serious problem mostly because ‘thoughts’ (intellectual property) has a monetary value. In our current society that’s understandable to an extent, but it gets out of hand when the health and welfare of people are at risk and major corporations are the owners of said property.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 141
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 10:59:51 PM
Adam,

I guess in an RBEM a new kind of “bill of rights” as it were could be formulated based on natural law and common sense.


The term ‘common sense’ is terribly misused and abundantly so. I’m sure what you are talking about when referring to common sense. It actually refers to ‘so-called’ common tips of the ‘tribe’ and is culturally inspired so attempting to apply common sense globally would not work right now.


But having said that, where is the need for such a document when a decent, relevant and applicable education on the physical world and the well-being of life on earth, can provide that as a value system orientation anyway? Hense why it becomes common sense. In this regard I completely agree with a lot of the things stated by Michael of Berncia.

When it comes to “liberty to act”, then Michael of Bernicia has the following phrase:

“My rights end, where your rights begin”.


What rights? You seem to be starting in the middle – we have to get from HERE to THERE through transition. That’s why I choose to the topics I did, because we are so culturally diverse and so entrenched in our current model of thinking. Someone in an earlier post made this point but I don’t think it picked up on. It would take generations before we could actually get to the place you envision. I’ve changed the discussion so that we could look at the transition.

Of course you may have another idea on this could happen all at once, can you expand on that?
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 142
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 11:10:22 PM
JustDukky,

It's still in the "vision" stage isn't it? If it wasn't an artificial construction, you would by now see the embryos of such communities everywhere. You might see evidence of the previous failed attempts at such communities that died by reason of the inherent flaws in the model at the time. In short, you would see strong evidence of its natural evolution, since that's the way natural constructions appear…They evolve; they aren't designed.


I think I agree with you but let me make sure. I think Adam is starting ‘in the vision’ of the future, while I’m starting by looking at transitions (first steps). In effect we are ‘designing’ to some degree but only in increments because, as you’ve stated, we would have to see what works and what doesn’t and as things change there must be flexibility so that future changes will be more emergent rather than path driven.

In a sense, the United States was the same way. The laws & Constitution included what was thought to be the best of old systems but it was obviously broad on purpose so that it could be flexible. Based what I’ve said, do you think we are in agreement ? If not that’s ok but explain what part(s) we differ on.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 143
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 11:25:58 PM
Adam,

And you have also displayed a failure to acknowledge the existance of earthship communities, open-source ecology and transition town groups as an overall "embryonic" stage of the necessary TRANSITION, not "sudden" move as you have later on fallaciously tried to infer.


I’m responding one post at a time so I think my previous posts might be Non sequitur, sorry about that. ANYWAY, apparently I’m not up on TZM either, or I missed the link or information about ("embryonic" stage of the necessary TRANSITION) in the previous posts as I came into the discussion later.

Would you mind explaining or providing a line (that is not a long movie) that will explain current TZM transitions theories? Thanks!
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 144
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/12/2012 11:35:24 PM
I just wanted to let you all know that I have to go out of town (family matters) so I won't be posting till Wednesday or Thursday. I'm not abandoning this thread, in fact I hope to get responces from my recent posts so I can catch up when I get back.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 145
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 8/13/2012 3:29:44 AM
>>>I was actually referring to the behaviour on the part of yourself and CressB.

Lol nice spin, but your comments were clearly directed at Dukky and his own comments;



Probably not. Where I see an error is in your dogmatic, uncritical approach.



Because I don't bow to misinformed, uniformed, ignorant, logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest claims? Wow, yea, that's REAL dogma. lol


My actions to calling you a "zealot" shouldn't have any real effect on how you treat dukky, tho- if you want to take the moral high ground, and promote a "mature" discussion, then maybe you should act like you deserve one. If you don't want people to call you names, maybe you shouldn't call others names. Because by my count, Dukky hasn't called you any names at all....
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 146
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 9/3/2012 1:40:45 PM
^^^^^^

well, as far as I am aware this is already happening in many many different forms, so your going to have to be a little more specific than that.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 147
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 9/3/2012 3:05:16 PM
I was just trying to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. Which I am sure was perfectly clear to anyone else who read it.

To be complete honest, I couldn't care less about anything you have to say about the matter, which should have been obvious to you by now. Dude, I gave up on you a long time ago.

Also, the answer to your original question was self evident. Which was why this thread had dropped off the front page, until you trolled it back to page 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWIFpAWnnhU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 148
view profile
History
The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 9/3/2012 10:21:03 PM

There's two items missing from your troll detection kit: A workable definition of a troll, and a mirror. :)


Nah, you don't need mirrors or anything like that. You just look for dead unicorns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIaxDaWG0IA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

See.

Come on man, this is common knowledge. You should know this.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >