A question to Communists:

[Gecko1]

What's the scoreboard?

What are you talking about?

Who cares about forged coins?

 

[BasketCase]

See, GP? There's another one who doesn't give a crap.

 

[Gecko1]

Yeah, you guys should find something else to fight over. Capitalism wasn't created by man. It was created by nature, thus it is never going away. Just find a way to gear it towards disadvantaged people and you've done the best you can.

Nothing more I can say.

 

[BasketCase]

And, how does that affect my system more than yours (or anyone else for that matter)?

My system plans for human irrationality. Your system assumes (wrongly) that humans will not be irrational in your system.

Humans will always be irrational, will always try to mess with the system for personal gain at the expense of others, and you will not catch them all. But you can take their irrationality into account.

Capitalism works because its rules plan for irrational people and provide motivation to irrational people.

Do what? See that their vote got counted?

People don't want to administrate the voting system. Some because they don't know how. Others because they're lazy. You can't be sure of finding somebody willing to administrate your voting system. If you can't find anybody, then you have a problem because your system forbids incentives or force in order to get people to do the work of administrating the system.

Capitalism simply starts raising the paycheck until somebody is willing to do it.

 

[greenpeace]

My system plans for human irrationality. Your system assumes (wrongly) that humans will not be irrational in your system.

Humans will always be irrational, will always try to mess with the system for personal gain at the expense of others, and you will not catch them all. But you can take their irrationality into account.

Capitalism works because its rules plan for irrational people and provide motivation to irrational people.

Um, so your saying the people in power are guarenteed to be rational?
Even if that were the case, rationality can be very dangerous when allowed for the purpose of self-interest. For example, sure its not nice to cause massive suicide of Indian farmers, but if your goal is money as it is for Monsanto, then it is a very rational thing to do. In my system the people's rationality can not be used nearly as affectively for personal gain. Also, people's irrationality can't have as much an affect on people as your system does. For example, if a congress was irrational enough to believe that we should spend millions for a bridge connecting an island of a couple hundred, it affectd the people. But, people would have to be extremely irrational to think it was such a good idea that they would actually spend their labor constructing (and even if they did they nobody would mind).

People don't want to administrate the voting system. Some because they don't know how. Others because they're lazy. You can't be sure of finding somebody willing to administrate your voting system. If you can't find anybody, then you have a problem because your system forbids incentives or force in order to get people to do the work of administrating the system.

Capitalism simply starts raising the paycheck until somebody is willing to do it.

Um, there is a paycheck and that is without this minimal work one could murder another in broad day light and nothing would be done to prevent future action (its one of those natural incentives).

 

[BasketCase]

In my system the people's rationality can not be used nearly as affectively for personal gain.

I already listed a whole lot of ways in this thread. And it has been a very, very, VERY long thread.

Um, there is a paycheck and that is without this minimal work one could murder another in broad day light and nothing would be done to prevent future action (its one of those natural incentives).

And everybody draws the same rationalization: "somebody ought to do something". The implication being, somebody ELSE should do it.

Take a look at all the incidents out in the real world (there's those two words again) where somebody got robbed or raped and none of the onlookers did anything to intervene.

No, it's not how people should be. That is how people ARE. They don't give a crap about your natural incentives.

 

[greenpeace]

I already listed a whole lot of ways in this thread. And it has been a very, very, VERY long thread.

And I refuted all of them.

And everybody draws the same rationalization: "somebody ought to do something". The implication being, somebody ELSE should do it.

Take a look at all the incidents out in the real world (there's those two words again) where somebody got robbed or raped and none of the onlookers did anything to intervene.

No, it's not how people should be. That is how people ARE. They don't give a crap about your natural incentives.

First of all your example is yet again completely irrelevant. When chances are there is nothing you could do except get yourself killed, then people won't do much. However, when ones life is in danger and the way to stop is to just look at someone counting something (or whatever little thing it was you claimed is neccessary) than chances are there will be enough people to insure fairness of vote counting.

What's the scoreboard?

Gecko1: 999 spam
greenpeace and Basketcase: 0 spam

Looks like your winning.

 

[BasketCase]

And I refuted all of them.

No. You didn't. All you did was point out hypotheticals, and every one of them was a lie.

Your previous attempt at refutation, for example: that failed because I pointed out how people ARE. You keep talking about "well, if people were in this situation they would do X". And I've already posted a million REAL examples of people who WERE in said situation and who did not do X. When a person's life is in danger and their life depends on a vote (a completely arbitrary and therefore bogus idea from the start), they specifically want OTHER PEOPLE (preferably government officials and police) to supervise the vote counting.

Specific examples: the 2000 and 2004 U.S. elections. The problems that occurred with those elections have been so exhaustively covered that I don't even need to provide a link.

Every voter in the United States demands this when a vote goes wrong: they want the ballots kept under lock and key, and if a hand recount is done they want the recount supervised to make sure nobody swipes any ballots. In fact, the United States specifically AVOIDS allowing all the voters to have a look at the ballots.

 

[greenpeace]

No. You didn't. All you did was point out hypotheticals, and every one of them was a lie.

Your previous attempt at refutation, for example: that failed because I pointed out how people ARE. You keep talking about "well, if people were in this situation they would do X". And I've already posted a million REAL examples of people who WERE in said situation and who did not do X. When a person's life is in danger and their life depends on a vote (a completely arbitrary and therefore bogus idea from the start), they specifically want OTHER PEOPLE (preferably government officials and police) to supervise the vote counting.

But your examples were all irrelevant or doesn't prove my example wrong. For example:

Specific examples: the 2000 and 2004 U.S. elections. The problems that occurred with those elections have been so exhaustively covered that I don't even need to provide a link.

Every voter in the United States demands this when a vote goes wrong: they want the ballots kept under lock and key, and if a hand recount is done they want the recount supervised to make sure nobody swipes any ballots. In fact, the United States specifically AVOIDS allowing all the voters to have a look at the ballots.

So how does this at all disprove my point.

 

[BasketCase]

Your claims of irrelevance are lies.

You say your idealistic voters will participate and willingly administrate an election when needed for the good of society. I provide counterexamples. They are entirely relevant. And they cannot be hypothetical because they actually happened.

 

[greenpeace]

Your claims of irrelevance are lies.

You say your idealistic voters will participate and willingly administrate an election when needed for the good of society. I provide counterexamples. They are entirely relevant. And they cannot be hypothetical because they actually happened.

If they are relevant than explain to me exactly how that example was relevant.
Also, your trying to assume that people would not want to live in constant extreme fear over their safety less that they would not want to spend a very small effort ensuring that their voice makes a difference. I mean, I'll give you an example of people dieing to have even less power than that, its called "The American Revolution." Its relevant because they wanted freedom from oppression (the oppression being similar if not better than the oppression of the strong in this case) and were willing to die for it (more extreme than just spending a small effort seeing that your vote counts).

 

[BasketCase]

If they are relevant than explain to me exactly how that example was relevant.

Each of my examples is relevant because they represent real incidents that were similar to incidents you described. In those real incidents, people acted in a way different than you predicted in your idealized hypothetical situations. Therefore your hypothetical situations are false.

Some fond memories from past thread pages:

Your hypothesis that people in a Greenpeacocracy will reject any authority except yours. I proved (with the Milgram Experiments) that people instinctively desire authority and willingly obey it, even when ordered to do harm. This is relevant because it shows how people actually behave when exposed to authority. It shows that when a person outside your idealized authority system rises to a competing position of power, people will gladly line up behind it.

Your hypothesis that people in a Greenpeacocracy will reject any definition of "harm" except yours. I posted many, many examples of people who hold other definitions of "harm"--people who would kill you to see their definitions, instead of yours, used as the basis for laws. These examples are relevant because they prove your claim to be false.

The 2000 and 2004 elections. Real-world incidents where an election went wrong and accusations of election-rigging were raised. The people did not calmly and rationally throw the old ballots away and hold another vote, as you claim. What actually happened is that the people went bonkers. Those who won the election--rigged or not--wanted the result to stand. Those on the losing side kept demanding recounts, pointing out the recounts that went their way as the "right" ones even though they had no basis to prove that any one recount was the most accurate one. And the 2000/2004 elections are not the only example by a long shot--many times, in other parts of the world, people on both sides of a botched election picked up guns and started shooting each other over the results. This is relevant because it shows what will actually happen when I rig an election box and the people notice there are too many voting chips in the box. They don't want a fair election, and they never will--they only want an election in which they win. They won't be calm and rational, they won't empty the boxes and try again. They will go bonkers. And maybe they will shoot each other.


Your counter-arguments always go the same way--you say "no, the people would do this" but you never have any actual examples to back it up because (as far as we know) there's never been a real Greenpeacocracy within which to test the results.

Edit: This just in, crackdowns against the opposition party in Zimbabwe. Extra, extra, read all about it! See? It happened again.

 

[greenpeace]

Each of my examples is relevant because they represent real incidents that were similar to incidents you described. In those real incidents, people acted in a way different than you predicted in your idealized hypothetical situations. Therefore your hypothetical situations are false.

Some fond memories from past thread pages:

Your hypothesis that people in a Greenpeacocracy will reject any authority except yours. I proved (with the Milgram Experiments) that people instinctively desire authority and willingly obey it, even when ordered to do harm. This is relevant because it shows how people actually behave when exposed to authority. It shows that when a person outside your idealized authority system rises to a competing position of power, people will gladly line up behind it.

And I refuted your claim since there is an authority to follow, and your example shows no reason why one would naturally perfer harsh dictatorship over a system they had to flee to and that is much less potentially painful.

Your hypothesis that people in a Greenpeacocracy will reject any definition of "harm" except yours. I posted many, many examples of people who hold other definitions of "harm"--people who would kill you to see their definitions, instead of yours, used as the basis for laws. These examples are relevant because they prove your claim to be false.

And I continually stated that any arbitrary number can reject my definition of harm and in doing so reject my system. The ones left who agree with the definition would not disagree.

The 2000 and 2004 elections. Real-world incidents where an election went wrong and accusations of election-rigging were raised. The people did not calmly and rationally throw the old ballots away and hold another vote, as you claim. What actually happened is that the people went bonkers. Those who won the election--rigged or not--wanted the result to stand. Those on the losing side kept demanding recounts, pointing out the recounts that went their way as the "right" ones even though they had no basis to prove that any one recount was the most accurate one. And the 2000/2004 elections are not the only example by a long shot--many times, in other parts of the world, people on both sides of a botched election picked up guns and started shooting each other over the results. This is relevant because it shows what will actually happen when I rig an election box and the people notice there are too many voting chips in the box. They don't want a fair election, and they never will--they only want an election in which they win. They won't be calm and rational, they won't empty the boxes and try again. They will go bonkers. And maybe they will shoot each other.

You have yet to proove that a national election with possibly hundreds of million of votes deciding who will be executing the supreme law is logically equivelent to a small community deciding what to do about harm being committed, and especially how very unlikely election fraud involving these some hundred votes wouls last not only in months of rigourous debate over the matter instead of doing the easiest thing possible, and that this debate would meanthe collapse of the society.

Your counter-arguments always go the same way--you say "no, the people would do this" but you never have any actual examples to back it up because (as far as we know) there's never been a real Greenpeacocracy within which to test the results.

Lets see what I said:
your example needs to show that people would unanimously perfer a harsh dictatorship over the authority I described
agree=does not disagree
You need to prove it is not only logically equivelent but that it would have such an impact that it would mean doom.
Hm, doesn't seem I said that people do anything just that your examples need to be relevant and basic logic.

 

[BasketCase]

And I refuted your claim since there is an authority to follow

That made absolutely no sense. How is this a refutation??? It's not. If there IS no authority to follow, as you seem to be demanding, nothing can stop a person from stepping up and becoming an authority figure. And when people do that, they will receive followers--that is instinctive human behavior.

and your example shows no reason why one would naturally perfer harsh dictatorship over a system they had to flee to and that is much less potentially painful.

I don't have to explain why. All I have to do is show that they do. For example, many in CFC say Iraq was better off with a harsh dictatorship (i.e. Saddam) running it. Some Iraqis say that themselves: they preferred a harsh dictatorship over current conditions in Iraq. And I've done it yet again: REAL WORLD examples where people DO prefer "harsh dictatorship" over a "much less potentially painful" system.

And I continually stated that any arbitrary number can reject my definition of harm and in doing so reject my system.

And I continually stated that many of those people are trying to kill you right now. You cannot co-exist with people who want to kill you. Period.

You have yet to proove that a national election with possibly hundreds of million of votes deciding who will be executing the supreme law is logically equivelent to a small community deciding what to do about harm being committed

I don't need to do this either. You will be a small community living within a larger nation, and their laws trump yours. Their definition of harm? It trumps yours. You will obey their definition of harm, or you will end up the same way David Koresh ended. He failed to become a martyr for his way of life; his death did not gain any favorable press for his way of life. (Yet again I refute your claims with examples from the REAL world).

 

[greenpeace]

That made absolutely no sense. How is this a refutation??? It's not. If there IS no authority to follow, as you seem to be demanding, nothing can stop a person from stepping up and becoming an authority figure. And when people do that, they will receive followers--that is instinctive human behavior.

Well there is an authority to follow and if someone tried to become a dictator then there would be two conflicting authorities and you have to show that all people will instincively choose dictatorship inevitably.

I don't have to explain why. All I have to do is show that they do. For example, many in CFC say Iraq was better off with a harsh dictatorship (i.e. Saddam) running it. Some Iraqis say that themselves: they preferred a harsh dictatorship over current conditions in Iraq. And I've done it yet again: REAL WORLD examples where people DO prefer "harsh dictatorship" over a "much less potentially painful" system.

Thats a different case where there are two options a) dictatoship b) chaos (modern Iraq) presented to a people accustomed to a dictatorship. You need to show that all people will inevitably choose dictatoship over a system that they had to flee to (or have a strong heritage in). If someone naturally perfers a dictatorship thats different, since I could have a group of a hundred and 90 of them could want dictatorship and they could have it, but the ten who don't would make up my system (well assuming it was my system opposed to dictatorship).

And I continually stated that many of those people are trying to kill you right now. You cannot co-exist with people who want to kill you. Period.

You and terrorists both exist. Why would it be different for me?

I don't need to do this either. You will be a small community living within a larger nation, and their laws trump yours. Their definition of harm? It trumps yours. You will obey their definition of harm, or you will end up the same way David Koresh ended. He failed to become a martyr for his way of life; his death did not gain any favorable press for his way of life. (Yet again I refute your claims with examples from the REAL world).

My friend continually takes illegal drugs (poor fellow) which is illegal. He does not obey the laws that his nation imposes on him. Likewise, its possible to do what I have described no matter how brutal the regime. Even if I am killed without doing a bit of harm, it does not mean that you can permanently extinguish the idea (or any idea) without killing off humanity.

 

[BasketCase]

Well there is an authority to follow and if someone tried to become a dictator then there would be two conflicting authorities and you have to show that all people will instincively choose dictatorship inevitably.

That's a debate foul. You are setting the bar impossibly high. I do not have to prove that all people will inevitably choose dictatorship.

And I don't even need to prove that a large majority of people will choose dictatorship most of the time--because Stanley Milgram already has.

You hold me to a double standard, you make up bogus and meaningless counter-arguments that don't make sense, and you completely ignore the many hard facts I have posted in this thread.

So, I've reached my verdict. You're a radical wingnut. And I hate radicals of any stripe.


We're done.

 

[greenpeace]

That's a debate foul. You are setting the bar impossibly high. I do not have to prove that all people will inevitably choose dictatorship.

But if you can't prove that you can't prove that its impossible.

And I don't even need to prove that a large majority of people will choose dictatorship most of the time--because Stanley Milgram already has.

Doesn't matter how many people can fall victim to a trap as long as it isn't 100% (and if everyone was completely mindless than humanity ceases to truly exist).

You hold me to a double standard, you make up bogus and meaningless counter-arguments that don't make sense, and you completely ignore the many hard facts I have posted in this thread.

Hard facts that are irrelevant are irrelevant. You say its impossible because some people don't like it, and me saying that its still possible because some people may like it is completely bogus? How is it a double standard, at all? If anything your making no sense for you say something is completely impossible because some people don't like it.

So, I've reached my verdict. You're a radical wingnut. And I hate radicals of any stripe.
We're done.

You hate me and you think I'm radical? So you call somebody radical because they disagree with your ideas, and you regard having hatred, the emotion of violence that causes so much harm and death in this world, as a completely rational response to disagreeing with you?

 

[BasketCase]

Hard facts that are irrelevant are irrelevant.

Your claims of irrelevancy are all lies. Every last one.

Yes, you are a radical. And yes, hatred is entirely rational, because it is radicals who cause most of the hate and death in this world.

 

[Gecko1]

Greenpeace I officially split with you. Hard facts are never irrelevent.

 

[greenpeace]

Greenpeace I officially split with you. Hard facts are never irrelevent.

So if I'm trying to buy a new car can you explain to me why immigration rates to Britain in the 1700's is not irrelevant?

Your claims of irrelevancy are all lies. Every last one.

Really tell me how saying that a percent of people may perfer dictatorship is relevant in determining if the society is possible?

Yes, you are a radical. And yes, hatred is entirely rational, because it is radicals who cause most of the hate and death in this world.

Haha, so even though you have yet to prove that this would cause any harm, and even though the system tries to have as little harm take place as possible, I am causing the most pain and suffering, even though you advocate genocide against me and the people who agree with me.