01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [751][752][753][754][755][756][757][758][759][760] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
751) Arminius, 23.06.2015, 01:19, 10:55, 17:44, 19:14 (3243-3246)
Uccisore wrote:
Socialism is a form of distributivism. Especially the lefish socialism wants to publicly (via state, thus via taxpayers) distribute like a huge monster of Robin Hood. A small common has nothing to do with states or taxpayers. Commons have a long tradition - but unfortunatley also their tragedy (**). This tragedy is merely then a huge problem, if the commons are no real commons anymore but a cartel / trust or antitrust of so-called global players.Uccisore wrote:
Would you mind telling me how you interpret the word distributivism then?
Is it like that?
I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (proletariat, precariat). It is a fact which we can also call distribution,more precisely distribution after theft, or just redistribution. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?Could SAM be a solution?
All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called "modern") corrupted relations and situations.
No. I meant the distribution of money. As I said: Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor (proletariat, precariat). (**|**). That has nothing to do with Facebook!And you did not answer my questions:
Would you mind answering my questions? |
752) Herr Schütze, 24.06.2015, 17:10 (3247)
Diese Allianz will ganz Rußland und möglichst auch China erobern. |
753) Arminius, 25.06.2015, 17:04 (3248)
James S. Saint wrote:
Probably Uccisore did not understand what I meant.James S. Saint wrote:
How can people of SAM defend themselves against corruption? |
754) Arminius, 26.06.2015, 22:15 (3249)
If you think that socialism has nothing to do with distribution, especially redistribution, then you are wrong. Please don't tell me again that the word distribution does not mean distribution because that's not how your language works (**).You mean a specific distributi(vi)sm:
Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words merely rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word social in the term Cathoilc social teaching?I was right, and I am right. |
755) Arminius, 27.06.2015, 01:12, 04:52, 05:33, 16:08, 17:00, 17:48, 17:56, 18:14, 19:18, 20:23 (3250-3259)
Uccisore wrote:
IF - I said: If ....Uccisore wrote:
No. You're really being dense about this (and about the whole topic).Uccisore wrote:
Not all but some of them. We - you and I - have two different definitions. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?Uccisore wrote:
That is your definition and the definition of the Catholic social teaching. I can merely partly accept that definition - as I already said in almost all my posts of this thread.Uccisore wrote:
Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word distributi(vi)sm. Would you say that merely the members of the party X should be allowed to define the word socialism? I do not accept this, and - above all - I do not accept it in a thread of a webforum called I Love Philosophy!The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism
is? Thus even in a webforum called I Love Philosophy is no
other definition allowed?
|
3251 |
Arminius wrote:
»Partly yes and partly no. Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism.« ** **
Needs capitalism? I was asking if it was a form of capitalism. I'd like an answer! **
Is socialism a form of capitalism merely because it 'deals with capital'? Because that's the argument you made for socialism being a form of distributivism, and I'd like to see if you're being consistent. **
Arminius wrote:
»The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word distributi(vi)sm.« ** **
Ah, I see. So you were using your own made up definition of distributivism when you told me that socialism was a form of distributivism, and resisted being corrected for three days. **
Kind of odd, considering I'm the one who brought up distributivism specifically to point out that it's a third way. **
Arminius wrote:
»The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?« ** **
Yes, according to whatever definition of »distributivism« lurks in your mind, socialism may well be form of it. **
Arminius wrote:
Would you say that merely the members of the party X should be allowed to define the word socialism?« ** **
Yes ... **
... and at least we arrive at the point. Socialism is a form of distributivism IF we just let you make up some wierd definition of one or the other of these terms that nobody is familiar with but you. **
Just as cats might be a sort of turtle if you choose to define the words as such. After all, why should it only be biologists who get to define »cat«? If you need to say cats are turtles or socialism is distributivism in order to avoid looking foolish, then by all means butcher the language until you get what you need from it. **
Nevertheless, the distributivism I was talking about, which is an economic system, and I clearly stated it was an economic system, and you clearly know the one I mean because you cited the wikipedia entry at me ..., socialism is not a form of that. **
I think I see a bit more clearly how you are pretending your mind works. **
What I told you days ago, is what you're telling me now; Yes, you are using »distributivism« as a general term for »any time you distribute things«. Yes, yes, I know. I told YOU that. You're using distributivism in a very loose and generic way, and I'm actually talking about the economic system .... **
Arminius wrote:
»I am right: Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.« ** **
Right, words mean whatever you need them to mean to win arguments on the internet. **
Meanwhile, socialism is not a type of the economic system that the rest of the world referrs to by the word »distributivism«. **
They are two completely different things, as economic systems go. **
3252 |
More than the Sum of Its Parts.
Just think about it.
Count them.
.... **
3253 |
This continued till the middle of 19th century, when Adam Smith .... **
3254 |
3255 |
3256 |
3257 |
Thought of any kind doesn't begin without inherent philosophizing. Even animals and insects are prewired with innate philosophies, »eat - drink - and get laid«. **
3258 |
There is
A) ontological philosophy
B) behavioral philosophyAnd (B) depends upon (A).
Non-cognitive creatures rely on pre-wired ontological and epistemological presumptions within the neurological system; "If I feel touched on my right, something is touching me on my right", "If I see it, it is there", and so on. Being non-cognitive, they do not think about such things at all. They merely accept the truth of them without cognitive thought, and without which they could not survive at all.
And such ontological presumptions constitute a philosophy of survival involving ontological constructs (solid surfaces, dangerous enemies, good foods,...) as well as recommended behaviors (run, eat, sleep, watch, listen,...). They do not CHOOSE to do these things, They are pre-wired with the philosophy, not educated into it (although some do learn from their parents or by watching others). **
3259 |
The philosophy of a Man is different than that of a human.
The philosophy of a woman is different than that of a man.
The philosophy of a bull is different than that of a sheep.
The philosophy of a spider is different than that of an ant.
The philosophy of a grass is different than that of a tree.
The philosophy of a mountain is different than that of a lake.
The philosophy of radiant energy is different than that of matter.But the philosophy of Affectance encompasses them all. **
756) Arminius, 28.06.2015, 18:57 (3260)
Do you think that language is based on an instinct?A) No.
|
757) Arminius, 29.06.2015, 02:27, 03:06, 04:12, 05:20 (3261-3269)
Zoot Allures wrote:
Interesting .... But ..., oh, oh ....Orbie wrote:
Interesting .... But is your story a wishful dream or a teen film clip?Mags J. wrote:
Interesting .... But can you really hear Orbie's post?
James S. Saint wrote:
For example: A prenatal human interacts with the mother's womb, a postnatal baby interacts with the mother, other familiar persons, and surrounding things; but a non-baby (an ababy[Mutcer?]) child interacts and speaks with many humans and many things, thus already uses a real language (e.g.: English).James S. Saint wrote:
Because of RM:AO, especially of SAM? So if you decided to vote B by considering RM:AO, especially SAM, then I would say your further vote should be B1.
James S. Saint wrote:
So does a »pre-wired« philosophy for dealing with life mean something like an instinctive philosophy for dealing with life? And, if so, what can a philosophy of non-life things be?Compare:James S. Saint wrote:
Would you agree, if someone said that most of the human governments are like cancerous ulcers, so that the said cells become more and more ill cells / cells that wrongly handle their environment and will be dead soon? |
758) Arminius, 08.07.2015, 22:35 (3265)
Project 2501 wrote:
Would you mind explainig it a bit?Orbie wrote:
Orbie wrote:
Orbie wrote nothing. |
759) Arminius, 09.07.2015, 18:48, 20:16, 20:17, 22:27, 22:36 (3266-3270)
James S. Saint wrote:
Would you mind telling me a bit about the equation itself (for example about the term to the right of the p +)?
James S. Saint wrote:
I thought so. But if all terms following the p + (thus the pta +) are the sum of all changes at all rates in p through time, then they have to include the entire time of the universe, thus also the future of the universe. Okay, this could also be a part of my thread Universe and Time (**|**).
Copied post in
another thread.
|
3269 |
3270 |
Let's have a first interim result for the question: What is your attitude towards theism?:
I am a theist: 3 => 33%.
I am an antitheist: 1 => 11%.
I am a syntheist (synthesis of a theist and an antitheist): 1 => 11%.
I am an atheist: 2 => 22%.
I am no theist, no antitheist, no syntheist, and no atheist: 1 => 11%.
I do not know: 1 => 11%. ** **
760) Arminius, 10.07.2015, 22:32, 22:41, 23:24 (3271-3273)
No. You (**) should get a new pair of glasses. Try to read the text one more time. I said: Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe (**|**). Perhaps .... It was not my statement but my suggestion, because I wanted to suggest a discussion. I was referring to the text of the physicist Sean M. Carroll: The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time (**).
|
3273 |
We are agents of time. Our consciousness, may be propelling time forward.
Our memories, act as anchors. Making the past stationary, anchored.
If we die, time will travel at an infinite rate until the next consciousness is online.
If we get enough telepathic powers, if we can predict the future so well and integrate future sight into our consciousness, and remove all memory modules ..., it is perhaps possible that we can reverse the flow of time itself.
This is all hyperbole by the way. **
==>
|