It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Whatap ATS,
It is time for Logic.
1 + 1 = 2.
What knowledge can we obtain by examining our surroundings, with a clear and healthy mind. If you have a problem, apply logic to it, and the answer you will find.
The inability of other people to apply logic to their problems, is the trigger that made me start this thread. I live around and with people. On a daily bases I depend on these people. Their actions have a direct impact on my reality. Now let's say someone in your direct surrounding, makes choices, that if he had thought with logic, would not have made, and in fact, would have made a choice that would have benefited the both of you, would he have applied logic to his problem.
Sometimes you may find yourself awake in a sleeping world. The above might be a bit confusing, but it makes sense in some way.
In the world today, there is a lack of logic. It has a name, Capitalism.
Everyone is busy trying to achieve their own interests. Instead of being unified, we are all separated. Everyone is fighting for the same peaces of bread. This will result in everyone competing. Some will win, and the others lose.
This is wrong. It's not Logic.
Hierarchy means that one group is superior, and the other group is bound to be inferior.
It means that party A can do something, having direct consequences to party B, without party B being able to do a damn thing about it.
Obviously party B is not in control, and is victimized by inequality.
What if we were all equal?
Then we would lose the need to compete. Compete. What does this mean. it is this element that keeps us all separated. It is so not logical. If we were all equal, the whole civilization of earth would be intelligent, so damn intelligent.
Everyone will get busy in doing science, art, music, whatever.
Being all equal does not remove the fact that other people will affect my reality with their actions. It only balances the weights. It removes the fact that party B can be victimized by party A, without being able to defend itself. It has gained the ability of defense. In a way I am talking about corporate structures. Both parties have equal chances, because their strengths are the same.
Is this logic?
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by cyberjedi
Whatap ATS,
This, right here, is a bad omen for what is about to follow.
What? You want formal introductions? You don't like the spirit of youth?
It is time for Logic.
1 + 1 = 2.
That is basic arithmetic.
Logic is different. I'm not going to go on to explain Boolean Algebra/Logic, as there are a hundred places that do it already, and it is something rather inherent to my background in digital electronics, so I'm likely to gloss over details the average person would need to know. en.wikipedia.org...
What knowledge can we obtain by examining our surroundings, with a clear and healthy mind. If you have a problem, apply logic to it, and the answer you will find.
Logic is a tool for analyzing proposed solutions to find the most favorable solution given the criteria. You cannot apply logic to a problem - only to the entire 'set' including the problem, solution(s), and the goal.
For example - you observe that the dishes are piling up in the sink. That's not a problem, in and of itself, unless you have also established a requirement that the sink be cleaned. Presuming that is the goal - you can then set your dishes on the floor and clean the sink, satisfying the goal of cleaning the sink.
Of course, if there is a problem, we have already made the assumption, that there is a standard that requires the sink to be cleaned. Now, we have the problem: The sink is not clean. What can we do to change this situation? So that it solves our problem, to meet our objective: A clean sink. In this case, applying logic in perspective to our objective, we indeed need to move the dishes. Or, in the first place, never have made the dishes dirty.
Now, if your goal is to clean the kitchen, you could set your dishes on the floor in the living room. Unless your goal is to not 'dirty' some other part of the house, or your goal is to clean the dishes. If that's the case, the proposed solutions that include cleaning the dishes better satisfy the criteria.
The inability of other people to apply logic to their problems, is the trigger that made me start this thread. I live around and with people. On a daily bases I depend on these people. Their actions have a direct impact on my reality. Now let's say someone in your direct surrounding, makes choices, that if he had thought with logic, would not have made, and in fact, would have made a choice that would have benefited the both of you, would he have applied logic to his problem.
Such as when people create threads in sub-forums that have little in common, thus cluttering the sub-forum with off-topic discussions.You are getting off-topic here mate.
The problem is that you are assuming someone should consider your deposition in their selection of solutions. When I buy a soda out of the soda machine, as opposed to from a store, it could be said that my room-mates lose out on the potential for me to spend that money on communal groceries, a new game/TV we will all use, etc. Over the course of a month - this amounts, easily, to $20+ that could have been saved and used elsewhere.
The same could be said when I choose to eat out as opposed to mess with cooking something (even though the stuff to cook is already in the fridge).
No, the situations you have described can not be applied to the rules i have set. I'm talking about a situation were person A and B, share the complete same interest and the same goal. B is superior to A. B makes a choice, not logical to the most profitable solution, which is the goal. The result of B doing so, is that B himself doesn't get the most optimal performance, and he drags A down the hill with him. Party A is able to influence B, to a certain degree, but B still has the option to do as he pleases. Once B makes up his mind, A has to follow.
Sometimes you may find yourself awake in a sleeping world. The above might be a bit confusing, but it makes sense in some way.
I didn't quote that block of text, but you are presuming to know what is a favorable deposition for all parties involved in your scope of analysis.
I eat out about once a week - usually on a Saturday, after work with one of my friends (also a co-worker). I can spend about a week's worth of groceries on a single meal for two. I don't jeopardize my ability to pay rent or my various bills - I'm not living on that tight of a budget - but it's an expense that can be categorized as entirely unnecessary.
If it is your goal to eat out, then there are expenses that go along with that. The expenses made are necessary because you wanted to eat out. This is logic. But, in the interest of saving money, you could better go to the grocery store. What's logic and what is not depends on your interests.
However, her and I spend quite a while talking. We've had some freakishly similar experiences in life (parents passing away, relationship issues, even the details of our previous relationship), and sit in a very similar situation - finding out that we've spent the last few years of our lives spinning our wheels and realizing we need to stop dreaming long enough to take a few steps forward.
We've had some pretty in-depth and helpful conversations over and after those trips out to eat. Helping her get back into a productive state of living and being able to be self-sufficient is a goal I see to be more worth the extra expense. Sure - we could just hang our in the car, at the apartment (or her house), or some other place that isn't below freezing right now - but it's pretty damned cute to watch her devour a burger before I can finish a quarter of mine. Carnivorous little thing.
In the world today, there is a lack of logic. It has a name, Capitalism.
Capitalism is an exchange-based evolution of small market networks (the 'village' economy versus the inter-city economy). In a small market - the farmer knows the blacksmith and the two's interdependence is self-evident. Same with the carpenter and all others in the community. However, in larger markets, I don't know you or have any way of determining how you contribute to society. The only way I can is through some common metric of exchange - money. The more money you have, the more potential you have to contribute to society because of the recognized value of your capital reserves and/or the productivity that has allowed you to accrue that investment.
I am talking in the interest of equality. Please, spare me your explanation of Capitalism, you have totally missed the point. In an ideal world, there indeed no need for money. We may use an alternative, but certainly not run by banks and the FED. With this new system, people won't need to work, or just a lot less. Machinery will take over 75% of all production related labor. If all the suppressed energy technologies came to use, we would swim in abundance. Everyone is fair to each other, everybody shares the same common interest. Everyone works towards the betterment of the whole. People won't need to compete anymore.
Everyone is busy trying to achieve their own interests. Instead of being unified, we are all separated. Everyone is fighting for the same peaces of bread. This will result in everyone competing. Some will win, and the others lose.
Sure, if the number of people producing bread remains the same while the population increases, someone is going to have to go without bread. Thankfully, however, the crux of 'capitalism' and free-market dynamics is that I could suddenly grow a wild hair up my bum, grow some stuff, and sell some bread if there's a lack of people making bread. Tell this to all the children in the world dying as a result of poverty, a situation created by capitalism.
Let's say I do that. Why should I just hand people bread? Obviously - most people are doing something productive in society, building the cars we use, manning the registers we frequent, maintaining the roads, etc. However - I know of quite a few people who do nothing, too. People who do nothing but sit there and not contribute to society generally lack money. To ensure that people I give bread to are also contributing - it makes sense to charge money for the bread I make - especially since most other people making things I need also charge money.
People need to compete for money. There are a x amount jobs, for a y amount of people. number y will always exceed x. This will spark people into competitiveness. Let's say, person A en B, have the same qualities. Both are identical in every way. But, there is only 1 job for them. Who get's it? A and B know of each other, both going for the same job. Person A tells the truth, and by that he tells all his capabilities. This makes him no better then person B. Person B knows this and anticipates on this. He will make up lies, which will result in him getting the job, because his credentials seem to better then person. Person B is a person that grew up in capitalism, he knows he has to compete.
This is wrong. It's not Logic.
Logic is not something you can hijack to justify your pity-party.??????????????
Hierarchy means that one group is superior, and the other group is bound to be inferior.
I'm going to sound like a prick - and you're going to deal with it. I perform within the upper 90 percentile in metrics of physical capability and intellectual pursuits. I am, by almost every available metric - superior to over 90% of the rest of the population. It doesn't matter what you do, I'll learn it faster than you and do it better in a frustratingly short amount of time, with only a few exceptions to the trend.
My father was the same way, as were my grandparents. It's likely my children will be the same way.
It's entirely plausible and likely that my family line - and other family lines with similar hereditary (genetic and non-genetic) properties will ultimately hold most of the leadership and developing positions within society.
Let's put you and your family in Somalia, from there on, please show me how superior you will be. Your resources will ofcourse be the same amount as that of the locals. You are not superior to anybody. Everyone is equal. Your education and wealth don't matter. If we raise everyone with the exact same set of tools and resources, only then may we see who truly is superior in development.
It means that party A can do something, having direct consequences to party B, without party B being able to do a damn thing about it.
By all means, tell me of your woes and what others can do to make your stay on this planet more comfortable.
Seriously. It is not other people's responsibility to always consider you. It is impractical. That is why you have a mouth of your own. That is also why we have developed a democracy with representatives, so that you may voice your concerns about issues so that those issues can be presented to the legislative bodies.
It is only impractical in a Capitalism controlled society, were one only thinks for himself. So let's say i do that. I have problem, with this problem, i got to my local representatives. But the problem here with democracy and capitalism is, that one goes to forward a problem, and wants a result most favorable to only himself. Everyone acts on behalf of his own interest. Then we go on to vote. All the people eligible to vote, have different standards, different views on what is fair and what is not. When we are all equal in resources, we will share the same interests, the same views and standards. The vote is democratic, yes, but that still does not mean it is fair.
The system can't work when people rely on their government-issue telepathy implants.
Obviously party B is not in control, and is victimized by inequality.
This is implying party A is in control of party B? What an illogical assumption. Simply because party B has difficulty demonstrating competence in controlling the individual lives of its members does not mean party A is in control.
And it is you who is making this assumption. Party A is not in total control of party B, but is able to affect party B, without party B being able to do something about it. Do you get it now?
What if we were all equal?
We aren't all equal. We are all human - but we are not equal as we are all individuals with our own traits and characteristics. When you add all of those traits up - we are still not equal. That is not to say any one person is worth more or less than another - but that people are so different and beyond quantification as to not even be preoccupied with attempting to strive for equality beyond recognizing when someone is contributing (even the retard can bring up good points that a room full of geniuses is missing).
I am not talking about being equal in characteristics, being equal in a economic way. So that person A has the same amount of resources available to him as person B.
Then we would lose the need to compete. Compete. What does this mean. it is this element that keeps us all separated. It is so not logical. If we were all equal, the whole civilization of earth would be intelligent, so damn intelligent.
To be blunt - I want my kids to be smarter, faster, stronger, and better equipped than any other person's out there. I want my family, my friends, and the families of my friends to be the same way. I see it as my responsibility to do what I can to improve myself and others I know. I view it as a form of competition. If things go south - I want a group of friends and family who can rely upon each other and assert our existence.
Others handle competition entirely differently - rather than attempting to improve themselves and others around them, they attempt to sabotage other people.
Really, competition is the heart of evolutionary theory - the populations best equipped to handle the environment at the time will out-number and eventually become the successors to populations that did not exhibit traits that allowed them to handle the environment.
Any idea that demonizes the competitive spirit of life on our planet seems to be rather narrow-minded. Again, I am talking about competitiveness in a economic way. I'm not talking about evolution, it has nothing to do with the subject, nothing. Certainly you can connect competitiveness wit that, but in a totally different context.
Everyone will get busy in doing science, art, music, whatever.
In a capitalist economy, you don't get paid unless you are doing something considered to be productive and worth being paid to do. It can be my own productive endeavor (entrepreneurship) or as an assist to some other person(s) endeavor (being an employee) - in either case, given the options of "don't eat" and "work to be productive" - I choose the "work to be productive." An empty bank account is some serious motivation. I can say that because I've been there.
Being all equal does not remove the fact that other people will affect my reality with their actions. It only balances the weights. It removes the fact that party B can be victimized by party A, without being able to defend itself. It has gained the ability of defense. In a way I am talking about corporate structures. Both parties have equal chances, because their strengths are the same.
This doesn't really make any sense.
"Let's all be equal. If we are equal, we get rid of competition and make corporations fair."
How do you propose to do this, exactly?
You just failed, exactly. If we were all equal in resources, and there were no need to compete, corporations would be the first things to disappear.
Tax the wealthy out of existence so we're all sitting on the same amount of capital? Force corporations to be non-profit?
It's like saying "We need to use antigravity in airplanes. It would make everything much safer and more efficient."
Fail.
True. However, I'm not aware of a single functioning "antigravity" device. No one has even successfully demonstrated and repeated an experiment that demonstrates gravity can be negated. Thus, talk of implementing antigravity is like talking about implementing stargates for public transportation.
Is this logic?
Probably doesn't really matter. So long as you feel as though you are in "Party B" - your issues and problems can be rationalized as being caused by "Party A." I know people in the top 10% of the income bracket who still blame some ambiguous "elites" for the problems and issues they face.
I just like to think of myself as being in a party and class all of my own. I never cared much for society, and don't really care too much about its final deposition. I care about those I know and interact with - beyond that - I really don't consider people worth my time and effort. If you're in the room with me and problems happen - I consider you my responsibility. Otherwise - you're just another face in the crowd.
Now - I talked a lot about myself. Obviously, I'm the type of person that places myself as a priority over concepts of a collective. Some people place "the greater whole" over their own person. I generally find these people lacking in ambition while being exceptionally efficient at being annoying - but they are free to make their own life choices.
I should actually say that I place my own interests over the interests of the "whole" - I am self-sacrificing when it comes to the people I know and care about.
In either case - I've rambled long enough. Typing this has spanned dinner and an entire load of laundry. The thread may have already been moved by a mod to more appropriate sub-forum. I know I come off as an elitist prick - and I am, to a degree - but I'm one of the first to realize when someone is bringing up a factor I didn't consider, or has more knowledge/experience on a topic.
In some way i think you have missed the entire point in my post, so be it.
You are certainly not, superior, lol. You're going to have to deal with that.
The purpose of this thread is to compare things how they are now, to a ideal situation as to how thing could be, if everything was equal.
And also to explain the importance of logic, as this is key in the process to remove a system of hierarchy, and introduce a system were everyone is being treated equally.
So it is not, if we all work together, everything will get better. It is more complicated then that.
It is about bringing people back to see were we have gone, and how it could have been. And letting people know that we could solve almost all the problems in the world caused by capitalism.
Capitalism corrupts, it makes people compete.
Some people will inevitable lose, and so, they will starve.
To not let this happen, they will need to figure out methods to stay profitable, to exploit others, creating artificial scarcity, it's a very nasty game.
Your replies indicate that have missed the point of this thread, hereby, this issue has been resolved.
Do not call me names, it displays a total lack of standards, they are not welcome on these boards.
Well, our economy is active on a monetary system. This means that all money created, has to be payed back to the bank, with interest. The problem is then that the money to pay back the interest, doesn't exist. Until the process repeats itself again and again, eventually, when the banks refuse to put out new loans, everything will end up in the bankers pockets, houses, cars, whatever assets there are in place.
Now, we find ourselves in a situation were obviously some people can pay back their loans, and others inevitable can't. This system is not fair, at all. You would want to make certain strategic moves to stay profitable, thus competing with others. let's say there are 100 dollars total. there are 120 people, needing 1 dollar each. Obviously, no matter how hard they fight for it, some people will not have a single dollar in their pocket, either they go to the bank for a loan, or they become criminal.
This movie might explain this better then i can.
And yes, i will choose the ideal situation, everything equal to all.
Chances are, that you could have been born in a 3rd world country, suffering the direct consequences of capitalism, total exploitation, cheap labor.
Were the West and the US experience great wealth, others must suffer to match the equation.
The people in 3rd world countries are nothing less then you or me, they are completely innocent, and thus a victim of our economic system.
You could have been born in such position, i wonder how superior you would have felt then.