Technocracy a better answer, a Scientific one.

mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Technocracy a better answer, a Scientific one.

 www.technocracy.org 

If you never heard of it, it could possibley take a year to fully understand. But, it is the only Government designed by science and is based on an energy economy instead of money like every other government ever conceived. while we still have our current form of government i usually side with the democracts VS the republicans. 

From what i know about libertarians they seem to think the market will do whats best and we have seen that just isnt the case. The market does whats best for itself, not people, planet, reason, etc...


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:As far as

mohammed wrote:
As far as insults go, apparently you havent seen many RSS shows where they debate people on stikam, calling someone a dumb ass happens pretty frequently and is usually well deserved. Of course i wouldnt do that in a "formal" debate but the shoe really fit here.
Two points here I really feel need to be made:

  1. The behavior of others does not excuse your own behavior.
  2. Resorting to insults so early on made you appear to have little to no idea what you were talking about. Which is too bad for folks like me, who like to hear about new ideas about politics &c. And what argument you have made consists primarily of unsupported assertion as the suggestion that anyone who does not agree with you is deficient.

This combination does not help your intent. You may wish to consider this in future.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 not so sure i agree with

 not so sure i agree with you Jill. seeing someone call a spade a spade doesn't make me think they have less cred at all. like i said, i see RSS do it all the time and it hasn't effected me. i still think they are spot on!

The reason i jumped on doomed soul so quick was it was obvious by his statements he had done no research or did not understand the concept. And it was also obvious he didn't want to understand, he just wanted to argue and win without knowing what he was arguing about. to me, it just doesn't get much dumber than that.

Also Darth chimed in a bit of dissent and i didn't jump on him because he was being reasonable. 

 

the support for my assertions was given in the form of a lecture by a science professor and a video by an economist. all the information is there... you just have to read and watch, listen...

Also The_doomed _soul already annoyed me when he was arguing for Satanism in another thread. I have a low tolorence for hocus pocus.

 

P.S I am VERY proud to have my arguments rooted in Science and reputable thinkers. these are not MY ideas they are beyond what i could have come up with given the path i choose in life (a musician) but i can understand them and i would much rather they speak than i. because they are so good at it.


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: I don't care

mohammed wrote:
I don't care about the obfuscation the word Technocracy has endured. That wasnt the point of my post at all. ... Doomed either accept my debate or not.

Man you really are a dick aren't you?

It's been a while since I've seen such selfrightious condecention, and paranoid conviction that everyone else is both wrong AND stupid, from a non-theist on these boards.

mohammed wrote:
That wasnt the point of my post at all.

But it WAS the point of Doomed's post, and that's all he said, and you immediately pounced on him, so no wonder he started baiting you, and generally teasing you. You called him stupid, even though all he did was point out that your T.Inc does not have a monopoly on the word Technocracy.

mohammed wrote:
Doomed either accept my debate or not.

Of course he didn't accept it, because you told him what he would be arguing, as though that's for you to decide.

You might as well have said: "I challenge you to an argument: I'll argue that eating food is healthy, and you'll argue that we should ceremonially sacrifice babies (but not eat them) in order to get sustinance"

( Come to think of it, I think Doomed WOULD have agreed to that Eye-wink )

 

P.S: Sorry Darth Josh, I know that was just another ad hom, and not furthering the debate any, but I just got really pissed off at Mohammed's paranoid, obnoxious attitude.

I've allready given my two cents on this, which was just some whimsical musings on Sci-Fi Technocracy, and that's all I can, and will contribute, because I don't have much of an opinion on this subject. I don't even really object to Mohammed's T.Inc as such, since I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure he'd just call me stupid, and say I "don't have a logical mind" if I were to try and engage him in serious discussion on the subject.

He's being a selfrightious dickhead. You're being a selfrightious dickhead Mohammed. I'm sure you can do better than that.

 

 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:im not here

mohammed wrote:

im not here to argue about Technocracy inc. who did coin the phrase some 75 years ago. thats why they incorporated.

I was unaware that people could INC political and philisophical ideology, i should look into this and see if i cant INC my own o_O

mohammed wrote:

I don't care about the obfuscation the word Technocracy has endured. That wasnt the point of my post at all.

And mine is the exact opposite, i DO care about the obfuscation of Technocracy, and that was the point of my post... You can now understand my point of view ^_^ its the exact opposite YAY! progress

 

mohammed wrote:

Doomed either accept my debate or not.

Nuh huh! you accept mine! or dont... ya chicken or something? i double doggy dare ya... no no, i triple double doggy dare ya!... no wait, i quadruple triple double doggy dare ya to infinitey +1 and Colonel Sanders to accept my debate.

 

Besides, mines relevant to this entire topic

 

What Would Kharn Do?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:mohammed

Nikolaj wrote:

mohammed wrote:
Doomed either accept my debate or not.

Of course he didn't accept it, because you told him what he would be arguing, as though that's for you to decide.

You might as well have said: "I challenge you to an argument: I'll argue that eating food is healthy, and you'll argue that we should ceremonially sacrifice babies (but not eat them) in order to get sustinance"

( Come to think of it, I think Doomed WOULD have agreed to that Eye-wink )

 

In a fucking heart beat

What Would Kharn Do?


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:mohammed

Nikolaj wrote:

mohammed wrote:
I don't care about the obfuscation the word Technocracy has endured. That wasnt the point of my post at all. ... Doomed either accept my debate or not.

Man you really are a dick aren't you?

It's been a while since I've seen such selfrightious condecention, and paranoid conviction that everyone else is both wrong AND stupid, from a non-theist on these boards.

i think my last post cleared this up. I dont think everyone is wrong. since when did doomed become everyone?  So you are telling me what i think based on this thread? and you can read my mind and i think everyone is wrong...  maybe you should retract your dickish remarks... 

 


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote: In a

The Doomed Soul wrote:
In a fucking heart beat

I can just see it now:

"Sure, we'd die of starvation after a while, but we'd get to kill babies! I mean killing babies! how can you possibly argue that this is not the best course of action???"

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: not so sure

mohammed wrote:

 not so sure i agree with you Jill. seeing someone call a spade a spade doesn't make me think they have less cred at all. like i said, i see RSS do it all the time and it hasn't effected me. i still think they are spot on!

The reason i jumped on doomed soul so quick was it was obvious by his statements he had done no research or did not understand the concept. And it was also obvious he didn't want to understand, he just wanted to argue and win without knowing what he was arguing about. to me, it just doesn't get much dumber than that.

Also Darth chimed in a bit of dissent and i didn't jump on him because he was being reasonable. 

 

the support for my assertions was given in the form of a lecture by a science professor and a video by an economist. all the information is there... you just have to read and watch, listen...

Also The_doomed _soul already annoyed me when he was arguing for Satanism in another thread. I have a low tolorence for hocus pocus.

I'd steer clear of letting an argument from another thread affect all of your other arguments.

 

For the record, it was both of you.

Why isn't this forum adequate enough for a debate format?

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:The Doomed

Nikolaj wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:
In a fucking heart beat

I can just see it now:

"Sure, we'd die of starvation after a while, but we'd get to kill babies! I mean killing babies! how can you possibly argue that this is not the best course of action???"

Oh... close, so close... i would infact then blame any starvation and population decline on peoples lack of breeding, thereby increasing amounts of required sex and even more baby killing... its just pure win

What Would Kharn Do?


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: I think my

mohammed wrote:
I think my last post cleared this up. I dont think everyone is wrong. since when did doomed become everyone?  So you are telling me what i think based on this thread? and you can read my mind and i think everyone is wrong... maybe you should retract your dickish remarks...


I was writing my post before your reply to Jill was there, and as I read it I did think it was more calm.

And I'll readily admit, I have no rational basis to think that you are convinced everyone else is wrong, so sure I'll retract that.

But firstly, I qualified my post by writing it was an ad hom, not a logical argument.

And secondly, I still think you are a being selfrightious. You can be selfrightious and right, but it's still obnoxious.

And I base this on all the threads I've read where you have contributed. Not just this one.

I'm objecting to your behavior, and your general un-likebility as a human being, not to your opinions on Technocracy, because as I said, I don't have much of an opinion on that.

And I'm doing it, because I genually hope it will give you pause. I don't expect you to admit it, and appologize or anything, because I myself am way too proud to do that, if the roles were reversed, so I wouldn't demand that of you, but maybe you'll think about it still, and that might make you a little more friendly in future.

So, I'll leave it be... Peace

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:mohammed

darth_josh wrote:

mohammed wrote:

 not so sure i agree with you Jill. seeing someone call a spade a spade doesn't make me think they have less cred at all. like i said, i see RSS do it all the time and it hasn't effected me. i still think they are spot on!

The reason i jumped on doomed soul so quick was it was obvious by his statements he had done no research or did not understand the concept. And it was also obvious he didn't want to understand, he just wanted to argue and win without knowing what he was arguing about. to me, it just doesn't get much dumber than that.

Also Darth chimed in a bit of dissent and i didn't jump on him because he was being reasonable. 

 

the support for my assertions was given in the form of a lecture by a science professor and a video by an economist. all the information is there... you just have to read and watch, listen...

Also The_doomed _soul already annoyed me when he was arguing for Satanism in another thread. I have a low tolorence for hocus pocus.

I'd steer clear of letting an argument from another thread affect all of your other arguments.

 

For the record, it was both of you.

Why isn't this forum adequate enough for a debate format?

 

 

Fair enough Darth. it seemed to me he was going off into bullshit land but i take your point.  as far as debate in a moderated forum goes i think this thread is a great example of how other people can chime in and critical points get sidetracked. The whole point of the thread was completely lost when it could have been a big eye opener for a lot of people.

Now doomed continues the childishness with talk of killing babies etc... it just makes the forum completely dysfunctional. i think it should be easy to see why i lashed out at him.

 

Nikolaj Sorry i rubbed you wrong and i do not often get into arguments with people so i have to say im stunned. anyway, from my experience forums seem to be a place where it is easier to get into an argument.  i will consider your points and try a bit harder to humble the message a bit.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:seeing

mohammed wrote:

seeing someone call a spade a spade doesn't make me think they have less cred at all

You don't call a spade a spade. You just insult us as a child would. And your posts are riddled with condescension. Or maybe I am just too stupid and lack a logical mind.

 

mohammed wrote:

I am VERY proud to have my arguments rooted in Science

Are they rooted in science? Or Technocracy Inc lies and claims it is rooted in science when it isn't. I vote the latter. Just because we can assign value to goods based of off the energy required to produce them, that does not mean that our current economic system must fail or that energy counting is any less arbitrary than any other form of currency.

 

If you want to know why everyone seems to be turning against you perhaps this montage of quotes will shed some light on the matter:

mohammed wrote:

you just dont have a logical mind.

...

Maybe there should be an age requirement here because i think i have had my fill of debating with children.

...

i can not believe you think you have done anything other than prove your stupidity. give it up, you are challenging people that are way out of your league.

...

you do not have the ability to debate this subject.

...

you need some education here ya go

...

you are talking out of your ass

...

you are lazy or something else.

...

this thread is being hijacked by the doomed soul typing as much garbage as he can

...

god damn you are fucking stupid

...

look it up dumb ass

Every one is filled with condescension or outright insults. I hope you realize that these quotes will make people automatically disagree with you. I know that there was a mod warning on this thread, but I hope it stays open and I hope you continue with the childish insults and condescension. The more you do it, the more wrong you will seem in the eyes of others. Prove me wrong on this, stop the insults and have a civil debate. Or is saying "gad damn you are fucking stupid" just calling a spade a spade and nothing else?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:AuthorS.

darth_josh wrote:

AuthorS. They borrow from each other. The technocrats I believe you are referencing were originally put in place by the capitalists of the pre-foundation era.

I always see 'Them' or 'They' within the protests without describing who 'they' are from people dogmatically attached to the present form of capitalism. Why do you detach yourself?

What you call 'authoritarian', I call efficient.

If the usage and the production can be monitored then waste is decreased.

THAT means changes can be made to production in order to satisfy all demands.

The current system is flawed because one need only look at market projections and cut their production in order to increase the price and GOUGE the consumer. Likewise, if too much is produced without a demand for it then I have to tolerate yet another dollar store in middle Tennessee. lol. 

 

I really don't see "everyone against me". As you can see in the quote above Darth  has pointed out that he can see logic in what i said. Others have agreed as well. These are not my ideas. You and doomed just knee-jerked before doing enough research and i can tell by your remarks that you do not understand the ideas at all. If you want to debate Technocracy go debate it with the scientist that are its stewards. I am not here to debate its merits.

 Nikolaj Sorry i rubbed you wrong and i do not often get into arguments with people so i have to say im stunned. anyway, from my experience forums seem to be a place where it is easier to get into an argument.  i will consider your points and try a bit harder to humble the message a bit.

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Mohammed, i found that

Oh, Mohammed, i found that button to ignore me, that you were looking for a while back

 

Ignore_Doomy

 

 

Ok, it works now, used it on myself... definetly worked

What Would Kharn Do?


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:[mohammed

Jormungander wrote:

[

mohammed wrote:

I am VERY proud to have my arguments rooted in Science

Are they rooted in science? Or Technocracy Inc lies and claims it is rooted in science when it isn't. I vote the latter. Just because we can assign value to goods based of off the energy required to produce them, that does not mean that our current economic system must fail or that energy counting is any less arbitrary than any other form of currency.

 

Actually, without a control to measure by it is still close to following the method of gathering data.

However, the assertions are very damning. I wonder why technocracy isn't wording their ideas into hypotheses with testable criteria.

 

 

mohammed, I have been looking for Tolman's contribution to the idea other than the energy survey. a little help?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:Doomed soul,

mohammed wrote:

Doomed soul, i can not believe you think you have done anything other than prove your stupidity. give it up, you are challenging people that are way out of your league.  now with threats you have crossed the line imo.

 

Mods is there someway to put him on ignore?

Oh, Mohammed, i found that button to ignore me, that you were looking for a while back

 

Ignore_Doomy

 

 

Ok, it works now, used it on myself... definetly worked

What Would Kharn Do?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Oh,

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Oh, Mohammed, i found that button to ignore me, that you were looking for a while back

 

Ignore_Doomy

  

Ok, it works now, used it on myself... definetly worked

*smacks Doomie with a rolled up newspaper*

Bad Doomie! No biscuit! Bad!

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:*smacks

JillSwift wrote:

*smacks Doomie with a rolled up newspaper*

Bad Doomie! No biscuit! Bad!

 

What? Ask and ye shall recieve

What Would Kharn Do?


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

[

mohammed wrote:

I am VERY proud to have my arguments rooted in Science

Are they rooted in science? Or Technocracy Inc lies and claims it is rooted in science when it isn't. I vote the latter. Just because we can assign value to goods based of off the energy required to produce them, that does not mean that our current economic system must fail or that energy counting is any less arbitrary than any other form of currency.

 

Actually, without a control to measure by it is still close to following the method of gathering data.

However, the assertions are very damning. I wonder why technocracy isn't wording their ideas into hypotheses with testable criteria.

 

 

mohammed, I have been looking for Tolman's contribution to the idea other than the energy survey. a little help?

 

hmm they also have a forum at technocracy.ca ive never joined but im sure that someone there could tell you more about him. 

i know he was a Technocrat and a very impressive scientist. 

Born in West Newton, Massachusetts, brother of behavioral psychologist Edward Chace Tolman, Richard C. Tolman studied chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, receiving his bachelor's degree in 1903 and Ph.D. in 1910.

In 1912, two years out of school, Tolman more or less single-handedly coined the concept of relativistic mass, in stating: “the expression m0(1 − v2/c2)−1/2 is best suited for THE mass of a moving body”

To me with all these great minds associated with it you have to give it SERIOUS consideration and not just knee-jerk and say its "sci-fi"

There is a LOT of information in the FAQ. links are below.

here is more resources http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm              http://www.technocracy.ca/


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:To me with

mohammed wrote:

To me with all these great minds associated with it you have to give it SERIOUS consideration and not just knee-jerk and say its "sci-fi"

 

...but no one is saying technocracy is Sci-Fi, only that its concept has been imbedded in sci-fi... in comparision, SPACE NAZI'S AND SPACE COMMUNISTS are Sci-Fi... just as SPACE TECHNOCRATS are Sci-Fi... i think its the correlation between space and ideology but then again, im just the retard... so im sure you already understood that

What Would Kharn Do?


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 I'm just generalizing

 I'm just generalizing doom... sci-fi = Bullshit .....  wrong, etc.... fill in the blank with any negative connotations. in other words it has so many great scientific minds involved to just wright it off seems very....must be nice must be nice must be....    ummm er... wrong?!?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: I'm just

mohammed wrote:

 I'm just generalizing doom... sci-fi = Bullshit .....  wrong, etc.... fill in the blank with any negative connotations.

Quick Excuse: That was just a test to see if you pressed the ignore button, sadly... it appears you did not

What Would Kharn Do?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:To me with

mohammed wrote:


To me with all these great minds associated with it you have to give it SERIOUS consideration

 

Nope. Even if some early 20th century scientists made this or supported this, it does not matter. This concept will fail or succeed based off of its merits, not off of how many great early to mid 20th century scientists liked it. If it is a great concept then it is a great concept no matter how few scientists like it. If it is a terrible concept, then it is a terrible concept no matter how many great minds worked to produce it. Appeals to authority do tend to be ignored by atheists.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 nope didnt press it... i

 nope didnt press it... i was bullshiting about the ignore... i didnt think there really was one.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:mohammed

Jormungander wrote:

mohammed wrote:

 

 

To me with all these great minds associated with it you have to give it SERIOUS consideration

 

 

 

 

Nope. Even if some early 20th century scientists made this or supported this, it does not matter. This concept will fail or succeed based off of its merits, not off of how many great early to mid 20th century scientists liked it. If it is a great concept then it is a great concept no matter how few scientists like it. If it is a terrible concept, then it is a terrible concept no matter how many great minds worked to produce it. Appeals to authority do tend to be ignored by atheists.

 

while i agree with the statement that if its great it will stand i think most people would concede that a statement coming from einstein demands much more respect (off the cuff) than a astatement from a creation scientist. BTW Einstein was a technocrat. Sticking out tongue


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:mohammed

Jormungander wrote:

mohammed wrote:

 

To me with all these great minds associated with it you have to give it SERIOUS consideration

 

Nope. Even if some early 20th century scientists made this or supported this, it does not matter. This concept will fail or succeed based off of its merits, not off of how many great early to mid 20th century scientists liked it. If it is a great concept then it is a great concept no matter how few scientists like it. If it is a terrible concept, then it is a terrible concept no matter how many great minds worked to produce it. Appeals to authority do tend to be ignored by atheists.

I concur.

Based upon other knowledge of Tolman, I'd love to read his feasibility study on this matter though. If anyone asks whom I think tackles the hard questions or 'thinks outside of the box' then that is one of my choices.

So, I'm not looking to appeal to authority one way or another. Sometimes we do have to have a sounding board for continued study.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: most people

mohammed wrote:

most people would concede that a statement coming from einstein demands much more respect

On the contrary, Einstein was wrong about a few of his hypothesis. He is famous for his correct ones, but he was dead wrong on a few things that he claimed. His hypothesis on superconductivity turned out dead wrong. There is nothing wrong about that, but he holds no special respect in his claims just because he is Einstein. Especially not in economic matters. If a creation scientist accidentally said something true, then it is still true. If Einstein says something false, it is still false. I really don't care what some science authority's opinion on this matter is.

 

mohammed wrote:

BTW Einstein was a technocrat. Sticking out tongue

I thought the technocrats claimed that they were NOT socialists, but Einstein was a socialist. He was very clear that he was a socialist. He even wrote "Why Socialism," not "Why Technocracy Inc."

 

Quote:

So, I'm not looking to appeal to authority one way or another. Sometimes we do have to have a sounding board for continued study.

There is nothing wrong with looking into someone else's works.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
My only post #7 was a nod to

My only post #7 was a nod to the serious need to change the present ailing system, and after reading an hr of this tech stuff, I am somewhat encouraged, as it is a serious call for real revolution, along the lines of "eat the rich", but this seems nearly impossible to rally the apathetic uneducated required public support, in a near future if ever. ??? 

The rich class would fight this tooth and nail. Heck, this a call for class warfare! Isn't it?

This is something perhaps Hamby could help us sort thru ... seems up his allay of interest and study. Dumb me needs help putting this in better perpective. 

Thanks for posting it  mohammad. The system needs fixing.    


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 im not talking about the

 im not talking about the fact that if someone is wrong they are wrong no matter who they are... that seems elementary. Some people just get more of listen by virtue of who they are .. their credentials.  people are more likley to look into them as opposed to me just because of their credentials.  

 

click here to see my example


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: im not

mohammed wrote:

 im not talking about the fact that if someone is wrong they are wrong no matter who they are... that seems elementary. Some people just get more of listen by virtue of who they are .. their credentials.  people are more likley to look into them as opposed to me just because of their credentials.  

 

click here to see my example

*smacks Mohammed with a rolled up newspaper*

Bad prophet! No cookie! Bad!

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 lol sorry jill you were an

 lol sorry jill you were an unintended victim! Smiling hehe this prophet programs HTML and i saw dooms little trick when i moused over. you can see where the link goes with Google chrome.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:My

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

My only post #7 was a nod to the serious need to change the present ailing system, and after reading an hr of this tech stuff, I am somewhat encouraged, as it is a serious call for real revolution, along the lines of "eat the rich", but this seems nearly impossible to rally the apathetic uneducated required public support, in a near future if ever. ??? 

The rich class would fight this tooth and nail. Heck, this a call for class warfare! Isn't it?

This is something perhaps Hamby could help us sort thru ... seems up his allay of interest and study. Dumb me needs help putting this in better perpective. 

Thanks for posting it  mohammad. The system needs fixing.    

 

no problem man i think you are correct in your intial reaction. this was fought very hard in the begining. caught hold at the great depression and then fizzled because of the war.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:  click here

mohammed wrote:
 

click here to see my example

I can't be rick rolled on firefox. Just hover your mouse over the link and the address is displayed on the bottom left side of the browser.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Well, you'll probably shit

Well, you'll probably shit when I mention that Tolman was one of Einstein's opponents on a few things. lol.

As far as scientists opining on social matters, we have to remember that they are just as much of a slave to the system as we are.

I don't have to have ROI calculated in order to get my paycheck and for the most part, no one vetoes funding bills for me like they do scientists.

 

I can understand why scientists would prefer a government operated on statistical projections of efficiency rather than our present one. We are wasteful.

I'd like to see more of a democratic input into the idea of technocracy because it's the people producing the energy, maintaining the infrastructure, and ultimately in charge of the usage. Scientists as public servants sounds really good though. lol.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 damn that is crazy! in

 damn that is crazy! in energy accounting with no one having more buying power than the other person it takes away the control of people.  and at the same time no one is screwed because they are crippled etc...  you are free to work in a capacity that suits your lskill level. also being based on energy the incentive is to get rid of planned obsolescence and make things as well as possible.  oh yeah social issues are voted on democratically.  with energy accounting, It's a good thing when technology makes your work load easier. there is no need to look for reasons to "justify" your job etc.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2642
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote: damn that

mohammed wrote:

 damn that is crazy! in energy accounting with no one having more buying power than the other person it takes away the control of people.  and at the same time no one is screwed because they are crippled etc...  you are free to work in a capacity that suits your lskill level. also being based on energy the incentive is to get rid of planned obsolescence and make things as well as possible.  oh yeah social issues are voted on democratically.  with energy accounting, It's a good thing when technology makes your work load easier. there is no need to look for reasons to "justify" your job etc.

I know they list the whole of North America as the ideal setting.

In your opinion, what would be the minimum size of an experiment to test the precepts?

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Folks, you might get kick

Folks, you might get kick out of this, which I've posted a few times with no responses. BTW, I am not a libertarian, as I'm not sure what it means. You can listen or read or both by opening your browser twice. "Clever" Bob Black has become a bit of a cult figure.

"THE ABOLITION OF WORK" , By Bob Black , essay
http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm

Episode 093 - click the podcast button, not the title. About 20 mins, essay starts a few mins in from the start .....

http://radiofreeliberty.libsyn.com/


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Their Energy Accounting is

Their Energy Accounting is utter bullshit.

From their own page: Energy Accounting

*Energy Credits are non-transferable. This means that they cannot be stolen, gambled, or otherwise lost. They also cannot be used to provide anyone with a "controlling interest" in societal mechanisms, which is commonly known as "bribing". This also eliminates the possibilty for profit motive, and thus ensures that all products and services are of the highest quality, with the lowest cost in resources.

Bullshit; Buy a product with your energy, give it to someone else, they sell the product for energy, boom. Energy has been transferred. Even if you can't sell anything ever again after you've bought it, true wealth is not the accumulation of money, money is only as good as what you can buy.<*1> If people are issued 'Energy Credits' then they obviously have a limitted supply of them. This means someone could buy something, and give it to someone else as a gift, or as a bribe. All this does is create a barter economy and force the people to get creative.

*Energy Credits are not based on scarcity<*>. They are instead a measure of the actual, physical wealth of a nation in terms of resources and energy. Therefor a nation that employs these credits is literally as rich as its natural and technological resources.

Bullshit; Unless you give everyone an infinite amount they are limitted and therefore scarce. Every resource is scarce, if it doesn't appear scarce then there just aren't enough people trying to use it (SEE: Air) or it will be bought up and made scarce through artificial means (SEE: Diamonds). Furthermore, how are people 'issued' energy credits? Are they arbitrarily assigned based on the work those people do? Won't that just lead to the people who do more work getting more energy to throw around on 'gifts'? If everyone receives a flat ration of energy credits how is that not Communism. And frankly, if everyone does receive a flat ration no matter what level of work they do then you can take this idea and shove it because I refuse to live in a world where people aren't tangibly rewarded for their efferts should they so desire such a reward. Furthermore if they do receive a flat ration then how does it not encourage doing the bare minimum work since no matter what you do you can't get any more money?

*Energy Credits are not based on "Value," but rather on physical measurements of energy. Thus, the energy "cost" of any item (such as a chair or tire) would be exactly equal to the amount of energy it took to produce this item. These costs would obviously never change, excepting where more energy-efficient means are found to produce said item, in which case the "cost" would only go down with no other economic side-effects.

Bullshit; What about the cost to transport the items, the cost of resources, the cost of setting up the factory, the cost of paying the laborers (or does everyone work for free, because that's not slavery) are all of these factored in? Funny, same thing happens with money. If someone is willing to do the work for less energy credits then what? If someone is willing to sell a product for less energy credits then what? Ar their freedoms arbitrarily restricted? Again, if so then you can take this idea and shove it. Freedom is more important than Security.

Furthermore, the cost would only go down? What about as materials become more scarce? There will always be problems with limitted resources for the simple fact that the Universe is finite and human population is growing. How does your system account for the growth of mankind?

1: Sidepoint. How is literally telling people that saving money and using it responsibly and not going on a huge spending craze is a bad thing a good thing? Essentially, this system of 'money that expires' would tell everyone they should provide for their survival first, and then just buy whatever they want whenever they want because the money's not going to be there forever. Its like the minute limits on cell phones before roll-over.

The economic theory so far looks like its riddled with holes, but I'm guessing you'll just tell me I don't understand it. If that's the case, then explain it to me. You came here and started making your claims, so you explain them, don't come here and start pushing an economic theory and then demand that we go out and research it because you can't explain it.

As for your repeated claim that Energy Credits are different than Money;

Energy;
^Value is Static (not really, you yourself said that the value would change based on how difficult it was to produce energy. How do you measure that?)
^Expires (Not really, see below)
^Representative of a Product or Service and alone is utterly useless unless you give us a way of using the energy to power things, but since I doubt you expect people to carry around batteries I'm sure the actual energy is stored somewhere else and you just carry a representation of it in a credit card type thing.

Money;
^Value is static if no new money is printed. We tried this once, it didn't work so well. Its generally accepted that a small amount of inflation is better than no growth, again, because the human population is growing.
^Expiration would do what exactly? (See below, furthermore, I'm against any system which says people aren't allowed to enjoy what they earn)
^Representative of a Product or Service and alone is utterly uselss for anything other than toilet paper or use as a coaster.

Do you honestly think that just by making the currency, in whatever form it exists be it printed bills or energy, expire will prevent hoarding? Please don't be a fool. Here's a simple way around it;

The Day before your energy expires, go out and buy a bunch of stuff.
The Day after your energy expires, go out and sell a bunch of stuff.

Bang, most of your energy is back in your pocket. Continue to hoard. Unless you intend on making all commodities expire too (however the hell that would work). Or unless you intend on making it impossible for anyone to sell a product back, in which case again, the real value of any form of currency is not how much of it you have, but how much stuff you can buy with it. Doesn't anyone remember the story of the guy who buried the massive gold nugget in his backyard?

And please explain to me how giving up all freedom is a good thing? I've never understood this.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:mohammed

darth_josh wrote:

mohammed wrote:

 damn that is crazy! in energy accounting with no one having more buying power than the other person it takes away the control of people.  and at the same time no one is screwed because they are crippled etc...  you are free to work in a capacity that suits your lskill level. also being based on energy the incentive is to get rid of planned obsolescence and make things as well as possible.  oh yeah social issues are voted on democratically.  with energy accounting, It's a good thing when technology makes your work load easier. there is no need to look for reasons to "justify" your job etc.

I know they list the whole of North America as the ideal setting.

In your opinion, what would be the minimum size of an experiment to test the precepts?

 

I don't think anyone involved would agree that testing the precepts is feasable, since it would require the whole north American Continent. Keep in mind our current Fed reserve system wasnt tested at all and we have been running an experiment for the past 30 years. in my opinion the survey would need to be done again since so much has changed.

I forgot about a newer design that uses resource based economy. thevenusproject.com Jacque Fresco is the creator of that design and there is a movie now. I'm sure Mr. Fresco was inspired by Technocracy.


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Bullshit; Buy a

 

Quote:
Bullshit; Buy a product with your energy, give it to someone else, they sell the product for energy, boom. Energy has been transferred. Even if you can't sell anything ever again after you've bought it, true wealth is not the accumulation of money, money is only as good as what you can buy.<*1> If people are issued 'Energy Credits' then they obviously have a limitted supply of them. This means someone could buy something, and give it to someone else as a gift, or as a bribe. All this does is create a barter economy and force the people to get creative.

 

WRONG!

There would be no need to trade since there is more than enough to go around. You can't sell to other people there is no selling.  im not going to even go through the rest because you are so wrong. its even in the text you posted that energy credits can not be transfered!  it's like reading someone arguing that math is bullshit. no im not going to hold your hand and explain it to you, you have links to the information which is spelled out much better than i can. go to Technocracy.ca and join their forum.

 

P.S this thread wasnt started for me to argue for Technocracy, it was started to bring it to other peoples attention that might be interested. I would love a system LIKE technocracy inc's or the venus projects resource economics but im not going to argue it. it took me a YEAR to explain it to one of my friends and they finally got it so im not even going to attempt it on a forum!

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:WRONG!no im

mohammed wrote:

WRONG!

no im not going to hold your hand and explain it to you

You mean to say that you are incapable of defending Technocracy Inc. That is why you have not presented any arguments in its favor. You are capable of making naked assertions, insults, and claims that we just don't understand it; but you seem incapable of defending it. Arguing in favor of the system you support is not 'holding our hand.'

 

Quote:

P.S this thread wasnt started for me to argue for Technocracy

Then I don't think that you should have started it. This is an internet forum: if you announce that a different form of economics is what we should all be following, be prepared to argue in favor of it. If you can't argue in favor of Technocracy Inc (or in favor of systems similar to it) then people reading this thread will see posters ripping Technocracy Inc apart with their arguments and no attempt from you to defend it. And saying that we don't really understand it doesn't help you. If we really are confused on this then you should enlighten us. If we are so hopelessly ignorant on this matter then you should be schooling us, rather than refusing to argue in favor of it. There have now been three posters (myself included) who have point by point shown deficiencies or outright absurdities in Technocracy Inc. Your incapability of countering their claims does seem to weaken your case.

And just so we are all clear: more naked, unsupported assertions from you does not count as arguing in favor of these kinds of economic programs.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:WRONG!There

mohammed wrote:

WRONG!

There would be no need to trade since there is more than enough to go around. You can't sell to other people there is no selling.  im not going to even go through the rest because you are so wrong. its even in the text you posted that energy credits can not be transfered!  it's like reading someone arguing that math is bullshit. no im not going to hold your hand and explain it to you, you have links to the information which is spelled out much better than i can. go to Technocracy.ca and join their forum.

 

P.S this thread wasnt started for me to argue for Technocracy, it was started to bring it to other peoples attention that might be interested. I would love a system LIKE technocracy inc's or the venus projects resource economics but im not going to argue it. it took me a YEAR to explain it to one of my friends and they finally got it so im not even going to attempt it on a forum!

Yikes.

Please, if I'm ever trying to get folks interested in some pet idea of mine don't argue for my side, ok?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 Take or leave it lol, im

 Take or leave it lol, im not obligated to argue it. i showed him where he was misunderstanding after he was extremely rude "this is bullshit" etc.. 
I will say it once again. I dont want to argue it. im presenting it, you can look into it if you like and there are plenty of members of that organazation that would love to debate with you guys on it.  plenty of information on the web about it.  

 

i simply do not have the patience to say something over and over while the other person is saying things like "this is bullshit". if they were nice and asked a question and said something like "what about this could you explain this better for me" etc... im sure i wouldnt mind. 

 

P.S jill why would i do that when my position is to not argue in the first place.. i just dont have the patience to debate when the other side doesnt understand.

Same goes for debating theist.... when they dont understand i have no patience, so i just input short points in a thread etc...


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:P.S jill why

mohammed wrote:
P.S jill why would i do that when my position is to not argue in the first place.. i just dont have the patience to debate when the other side doesnt understand.

Same goes for debating theist.... when they dont understand i have no patience, so i just input short points in a thread etc...

Well, the problem is that you're half arguing for Technocracy here. You make a half-hearted attempt to counter an observation you disagree with, then when the observer tries to back up their observation you name-call and claim your not arguing.

Basically; pick one or the other, the combination doesn't work. Your statement that you are not in any way obliged to argue for it is utterly true - so you can easily just ignore the comments, or just suggest they read the site more completely if you feel obliged to answer.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Well, the

JillSwift wrote:

Well, the problem is that you're half arguing for Technocracy here. You make a half-hearted attempt to counter an observation you disagree with, then when the observer tries to back up their observation you name-call and claim your not arguing.

Basically; pick one or the other, the combination doesn't work. Your statement that you are not in any way obliged to argue for it is utterly true - so you can easily just ignore the comments, or just suggest they read the site more completely if you feel obliged to answer.

 

 

Jill stfu how dare you tell me what im doing, im me... and only me know what i am doing, and i say im doing what me am saying.

So all you dumbasses shut up, i am right, your ignorant, the end... get over it

 

 

.... Oh shit im on the wrong account... brb

 

 

What Would Kharn Do?


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Jill, i quit the name

Jill, i quit the name calling so that card is out of play. and i think i can make a short point and make a half hearted argument when i feel its ok.
There just aren't any rules i have to follow here, im not going to argue anymore about it other than the occasional point.
It stresses me out and i do not like arguing. like i said if they want a debate they can debate people that are good at debating for Technocracy.

I am a horrible debater. period. I get frustrated far to easy. so just as i can decide not to respond to comments they can choose not to attempt to debate me now that they know my position on debating. In the future if i post anything else like this i will be sure to post the disclaimer. but i do reserve the right to make a few points etc..

 

Also when someone like doom or the other guy is a jerk and abrasive i will just ignore them completely.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Jill

The Doomed Soul wrote:
Jill stfu how dare you tell me what im doing, im me... and only me know what i am doing, and i say im doing what me am saying.

So all you dumbasses shut up, i am right, your ignorant, the end... get over it

 

 

.... Oh shit im on the wrong account... brb

Don't make me get the rolled up newspaper!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:Jill, i quit

mohammed wrote:

Jill, i quit the name calling so that card is out of play. and i think i can make a short point and make a half hearted argument when i feel its ok.
There just aren't any rules i have to follow here, im not going to argue anymore about it other than the occasional point.
It stresses me out and i do not like arguing. like i said if they want a debate they can debate people that are good at debating for Technocracy.

I am a horrible debater. period. I get frustrated far to easy. so just as i can decide not to respond to comments they can choose not to attempt to debate me now that they know my position on debating. In the future if i post anything else like this i will be sure to post the disclaimer. but i do reserve the right to make a few points etc..

 

Also when someone like doom or the other guy is a jerk and abrasive i will just ignore them completely.

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Jill stfu how dare you tell me what im doing, im me... and only me know what i am doing, and i say im doing what me am saying.

So all you dumbasses shut up, i am right, your ignorant, the end... get over it

 

 

.... Oh shit im on the wrong account... brb

 

 

 

I so fucking called it

 

What Would Kharn Do?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
mohammed wrote:Jill, i quit

mohammed wrote:

Jill, i quit the name calling so that card is out of play. and i think i can make a short point and make a half hearted argument when i feel its ok.
There just aren't any rules i have to follow here, im not going to argue anymore about it other than the occasional point.
It stresses me out and i do not like arguing. like i said if they want a debate they can debate people that are good at debating for Technocracy.

I am a horrible debater. period. I get frustrated far to easy. so just as i can decide not to respond to comments they can choose not to attempt to debate me now that they know my position on debating. In the future if i post anything else like this i will be sure to post the disclaimer. but i do reserve the right to make a few points etc..

 

Also when someone like doom or the other guy is a jerk and abrasive i will just ignore them completely.

Sad

Sadly you're so bad at it you can't see the difference between a point of argument and freindly advice.

I console myself by saying "I tried."

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


mohammed
mohammed's picture
Posts: 119
Joined: 2008-08-20
User is offlineOffline
 here is the first thing

 here is the first thing doom said... without me saying anything to him...

Quote:

"coulda swore a technocracy was a form of government solely devoted to progression and solving any/all problems through technological advancement?... not... this... crap"

 

he was rude as hell right of the bat... your not on the high ground doom...