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.

 

Monsanto's Dirty Little Secret: Anniston, Alabama

page: 6
102
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 


I doubt more than 10% of the employees live in BIrmingham. With traffic, it would take an hour and a half each way to get there. Most of the high ups live on the lake in Pell City. The rest live in Oxford/Anniston area.




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by isthisreallife
 


Anyone posting facts about Monsanto automatically get's a S&F from me!

Monsanto almost makes the Bankers look human.
Their terminator technology and patent on life itself are a serious threat to everyone on this planet, we as the human race needs to make a universal law that stops life itself being owned through patent by anybody.
Otherwise these guys are going to continue destroying the very fundermental ecosystems that we all rely on.
It's a no brainer owning something that can reproduce itself and its modification is highly dangerous - especially in the hands of a corporation!

A corporations primary concern above all else is to self preserve - even before growing comes self preservation. This is because a corporations goal is to maximise shareholder value - and it needs to make sure it is around in order to accomplish that - it will take the risks. Further, it will not take precautionary measures because they cost, and it's goal is to look after itself and the interests of the shareholders.

This is why we must get the laws changed, because we can't expect people to change, when it is the corporations who are now calling the shots, the guy at the top is trying to get everyone paid and will steer his corporation to crush whatever gets in his way even if it is risky - that is the job.


The system can work, we just need to redraw the lines because everyone has forgotten what is what and who is who - persons and corporations are one and the same, we share the same rights, we have the same certificates and licenses, we follow the majority of the same rules and laws. But corporations are not people, in their "primal state" these companies will self sustain at whatever the cost. And the best way to guarantee sustainability is to grow.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Nails in Monsanto coffins ..... I know most of us don't have stock portfolio's but some of us have 401k's and 529 funds .... we can check that our fund choices do not include the funds mentioned below. Also obviously we can stop banking with Barclay's and Chase Morgan Stanley. We can also write to our fund managers and let them know that we are not using their fund because of their investment in Monsanto.

Monsanto's executives are not the recipients of most of the appreciation in Monsanto's stock price. Who is?
Top institutional holders include Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and Janus Capital. Well, you'd expect that, right? Big capitalists of course want a chunk of Forbes' Company of the Year, even if it is the least ethical company in the world according to a Covalence survey.

Top mutual fund holders include Growth Fund of America, Ivy Asset Strategy Fund, and College Retirement Equities Fund. Hm, the sorts of funds anybody might own, from college students to retirees. And in even mutual fund with the most Monsanto, you have to dig deep to find it; it's not in the top 10 of holdings, it accounts for 0.63% of holdings. And while that is almost a billion dollars worth of stock, it's still a small percentage of the fund. Less than the same fund owns of McDonalds and way less than it owns of Microsoft.

This isn't like big media, which is largely controled by five families. This is more like big tobacco or apartheid South Africa. Lots of funds and institutions hold shares, and a divestiture movement might be quite interesting.

Hm, TIAA-CREF recently sold 10% of the Monsanto shares it owned. And Fidelity Management and Research sold 36% of what it owned. People can vote when they buy food, by not buying food that has pesticides or growth hormones or antibiotics in it. They can also vote when they invest, by not investing in funds that hold companies that do such things.

ALSO Boycott CORN/SOY/CANOLA & COTTON (unless Organic), just removing high fructose corn syrup from your diet a few shopping items at a time will also help get you there ..remember HFCS are implicated in a 6x risk for type 2 Diabetes and also implicated in heart disease /strokes ... so it's worth starting the label reading. Another sure fire way to avoid GMO's is to stop eating Fast Food (think of the savings ! :-).

riskman.typepad.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Here is an interesting piece from back in 2009 on the madman Obama's connection to Monsanto. ~SheopleNation

Obama & Monsanto



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


And the repair robots would need repairmen too. Everything decays. Only humans can stop decay. And if we ever made robots that could do it as well as we, chances are they're be sentient and demand freedom from what we tell them to do.


Or just have a good instruction set. Also... There are People whose bliss it is to fix (and improve upon) robots. And if it's Their bliss, if all Their needs are met, They wouldn't care what, if anything, They were being paid. They do it for the love of it.


People aren't the same. Not everyone thinks the same. Not everyone wants the same. Not everyone is the same. Try living in the real world for just one freaking year. There will always be people who want for what they do. And it won't be their "bliss". Since our last long-term talk about this, I have discovered that there are many in between of bliss and work I hate. This is because I live in the real world, unlike you. There is work I am willing to do, but don't want to, because it puts me in the eye of others. There is work I am not willing to do, but I would love to do, because I know another is better. There is work I am completely apathetic to, and well do for a friend, and no other reason.


I would appreciate it if You would own Your words, Sir. As in, "This is because I live in the real world, unlike I perceive you to be doing.

If You could have all the high quality food, clothing and shelter You wanted, and could do what You wanted, You could choose how You spend ALL your time. Not just that time between leaving work and going back in again. You may note I place no specifics - what You choose to do would be entirely up to You. But the People who improve things the most, better the world from what it was, THEY will be the rich ones.


See this puts a certain hole in your whole ideal world, because just because you like what you do, doesn't mean you're good at it. which in turn, can lead you to crack, as I have seen many times now in a mere year.


Darling, there is HIGH correlation between how good a job someOne does and how well They like doing it. No, not all People who love something do well at it, nor do all People who hate what They are doing do it badly. But over all... The probability of someOne doing a job well when They like it is very very good.


And when people crack, depending on how they crack, they grow hateful of themselves, others, and society. Some will actively seek to destroy society because everyone is better than them at what they do.


What's this have to do with anything? People who "crack" are People in positions They don't want to be in. In abundance, no One must do anything They hate. They don't have to be where They don't want to be. So "cracking" will be caused by interpersonal relationships - as many a crack occurs today - but without the cracking from struggle and strife. FAR fewer "cracks."


Nothing you're well-advertised society has can stop an angry person. No society can. Simply put, crap happens, and then people die. And it's usually when people die that people realize how incredibly stupid utopia is as an idea.


Um... People die, utopia or not. And I will say again, the abundance paradigm is NOT utopia. Just one hell of a lot better than what We have going now, perpetuated as it is by money, the soil the root of all evil grows in: The LOVE of money. I can't believe that People would say, "Gee. We no longer have People dying of hunger. We no longer have People stressed to the max, living in poverty (except where self imposed, and that is Their choice), but We still have death. Must be stupid, this system We have!"


edit on 9/7/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 






Or just have a good instruction set. Also... There are People whose bliss it is to fix (and improve upon) robots. And if it's Their bliss, if all Their needs are met, They wouldn't care what, if anything, They were being paid. They do it for the love of it.


no. They will want something, irregardless to if they give a damn for what they want. Go into the real world for a bit. People are dicks.




I would appreciate it if You would own Your words, Sir. As in, "This is because I live in the real world, unlike I perceive you to be doing. If You could have all the high quality food, clothing and shelter You wanted, and could do what You wanted, You could choose how You spend ALL your time. Not just that time between leaving work and going back in again. You may note I place no specifics - what You choose to do would be entirely up to You. But the People who improve things the most, better the world from what it was, THEY will be the rich ones.


I have been in this place. I decided to be a dick. I know this is wrong. I knew it was wrong then. I would purposely do less than best work for the explicit purpose of annoying people I disliked or disagreed with. Remember way back when? It only takes one social cleavage. We disagree on abortion as I recall. People who disagree with you have a higher chance of trolling you for no other reason than to incite annoyance. You're system has no means to stop that, nor the people on the top from controlling the masses' thoughts.

Ever hear of Dominionism? That is what you are creating.




Darling, there is HIGH correlation between how good a job someOne does and how well They like doing it. No, not all People who love something do well at it, nor do all People who hate what They are doing do it badly. But over all... The probability of someOne doing a job well when They like it is very very good.


Unless they subscribe to Dominionism.




What's this have to do with anything? People who "crack" are People in positions They don't want to be in. In abundance, no One must do anything They hate. They don't have to be where They don't want to be. So "cracking" will be caused by interpersonal relationships - as many a crack occurs today - but without the cracking from struggle and strife. FAR fewer "cracks."


I'd argue a great deal of the last couple of presidents and presidential wannabes all were not good ad executive positions, but thought it would look well on their resume.

People do cray things to impress.




Um... People die, utopia or not. And I will say again, the abundance paradigm is NOT utopia. Just one hell of a lot better than what We have going now, perpetuated as it is by money, the soil the root of all evil grows in: The LOVE of money. I can't believe that People would say, "Gee. We no longer have People dying of hunger. We no longer have People stressed to the max, living in poverty (except where self imposed, and that is Their choice), but We still have death. Must be stupid, this system We have!"


People don't have to die. There's plenty of ways to avoid death, But people create things like ethics and morality to stop people from doing those things. Hey look, there's another social cleavage. And yet another thing your system has no way to prevent its own collapse through.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Proud Alabamian here as well. A couple years ago my dad and I went to a hunting club (twenty miles east of Annistan) that his firm leases for deer season. Anyway make a long story short, One of the partners shot what he believed to be a nice trophy buck. To all of our suprise when he went to field dress the deer, right there clear as day was BOTH sex organs. This just reminded me of that day. I wonder if this poison had some kind of effect on the animals growth of both sex organs.?
edit on 8-9-2011 by bo12au because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bo12au
 


It could be - the kind of pollution that causes endocrine disruption.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

That's a big type of cancer in this region too - endocrine. Liver, pancreas, thyroid, ect.
My nephew had a pituitary gland cancer at 5 years old. You just see a LOT of it in this area- even in children.

I'm over the state line, but GE had a plant just on the Georgia side of the state line - it was also dumping the PCBs in the area, so the area from Rome to Anniston is pretty messed up.
edit on 8-9-2011 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



Or just have a good instruction set. Also... There are People whose bliss it is to fix (and improve upon) robots. And if it's Their bliss, if all Their needs are met, They wouldn't care what, if anything, They were being paid. They do it for the love of it.


no. They will want something, irregardless to if they give a damn for what they want. Go into the real world for a bit. People are dicks.


With now a limit of 5000 characters, this reply will be in a couple of posts...

In scarcity, some are (though I disagree with You that most People are). In scarcity, a desire for more is developed. In abundance, there is no point to "desiring more" because if You want it You may have it. "Dick" behavior is nearly always money/power/energy related.



I would appreciate it if You would own Your words, Sir. As in, "This is because I live in the real world, unlike I perceive you to be doing. If You could have all the high quality food, clothing and shelter You wanted, and could do what You wanted, You could choose how You spend ALL your time. Not just that time between leaving work and going back in again. You may note I place no specifics - what You choose to do would be entirely up to You. But the People who improve things the most, better the world from what it was, THEY will be the rich ones.


I have been in this place. I decided to be a dick. I know this is wrong. I knew it was wrong then. I would purposely do less than best work for the explicit purpose of annoying people I disliked or disagreed with. Remember way back when? It only takes one social cleavage. We disagree on abortion as I recall. People who disagree with you have a higher chance of trolling you for no other reason than to incite annoyance. You're system has no means to stop that, nor the people on the top from controlling the masses' thoughts.


Yes, My “system” does. In the (not so) long run. If You are a dick, Your status will diminish. No One will "play" with You. You will be avoided. It won't be like today where victims of dickness have no options. The landlord is a dick and won't fix the leak in the roof... Today, many don't have the option of moving. In abundance, a tenant could just leave. Plenty of places and services to make this happen.

Of course... In abundance there won't be landlords as there are now. Land ownership will be rather meaningless as houses and cities take advantage of the electrogravitic antigravity advantage and move to the sky.


Ever hear of Dominionism? That is what you are creating.


From: en.wikipedia.org...


Dominionism is a term used to describe the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States, with the goal of either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

The use and application of this terminology is controversial. Apart from a handful of social scientists who first coined it, the term is almost exclusively used by liberal journalists and bloggers.[1] It has been called a conspiracy theory.[2]


Do I seek to control anything? Do I pull any strings with how People govern Themselves locally? Regionally? Nationally? Globally? In fact… My “system” is based on chaotic governance beginning locally with global communication and access to allow for widespread awareness.

In chaos, no One has control, and the structure in the chaos will emerge, dependant on the seed the society is started on. I propose a seed aimed at giving each Human on this planet the freedom to do with Their lives what They choose and not HAVE to give energy to make Others profit.

The seed has simple facets, and include:

(see next post...)
edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: clarity



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


(see above post)


The seed has simple facets, and include:

● Reasonable demands of the Individual – follow the three Laws, act civilly, and remove Oneself from any that One is not getting along with.

● Look for betterment in all You choose to do; instill the Betterment Ethic in place of the work ethic (the ethic of slaves). That may be nothing other than that Your personal Conscious experience is blissful. Consciousness’s goal is to achieve bliss and this is betterment as long as it does not break the three Laws.

● Strive to build robots to do the work no One wants to do, and eventually no One will HAVE to work (though They may if They wish).

● Religious freedom is part of the seed. (Where is the “control” there?)

● A civic “duty” to check the Interweb and see if there are concerns One might help with or give One’s opinion of or vote on. Or put up for Others to help, opine, or vote on. This should be a central, open source, site.

● Open source is encouraged (and with Linux as an example, We can see there are People who will create and improve open source for free).

● Strive for organic multicultured crops, not GM (which should be contained and be available to the Public for review – with no money motive, why hide research?), monocultured, limited crops.

● And, of course, plenum energy freely available.

Given this, I cannot see how My “system” in any way resembles this “liberal journalist and blogger” term of “controversial” nature. In fact…

Try a 180.



Darling, there is HIGH correlation between how good a job someOne does and how well They like doing it. No, not all People who love something do well at it, nor do all People who hate what They are doing do it badly. But over all... The probability of someOne doing a job well when They like it is very very good.


Unless they subscribe to Dominionism.


Huh??? Their social subscriptions have nothing to do with the observation that Humans do things better if They like them than if They hate them with extremely high correlation. So please. Elaborate on why You made this statement…



What's this have to do with anything? People who "crack" are People in positions They don't want to be in. In abundance, no One must do anything They hate. They don't have to be where They don't want to be. So "cracking" will be caused by interpersonal relationships - as many a crack occurs today - but without the cracking from struggle and strife. FAR fewer "cracks."


I'd argue a great deal of the last couple of presidents and presidential wannabes all were not good ad executive positions, but thought it would look well on their resume.


HUH!?! I have no clue where You are headed with this statement, either. What has it got to do with My point that “cracking” is a function of economicly based social pressures?

And a resume is something One uses to get a job. If One does not need a job, One does not need a resume – except as it might raise One’s status. Liars who are caught become more pariah and lose social currency.


People do cray things to impress.


Yeah. So?

edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: I failed tags again

edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo

edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: clarity



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


(see above post)




Um... People die, utopia or not. And I will say again, the abundance paradigm is NOT utopia. Just one hell of a lot better than what We have going now, perpetuated as it is by money, the soil the root of all evil grows in: The LOVE of money. I can't believe that People would say, "Gee. We no longer have People dying of hunger. We no longer have People stressed to the max, living in poverty (except where self imposed, and that is Their choice), but We still have death. Must be stupid, this system We have!"


People don't have to die. There's plenty of ways to avoid death, But people create things like ethics and morality to stop people from doing those things. Hey look, there's another social cleavage. And yet another thing your system has no way to prevent its own collapse through.


Again, that People don’t have to die is beside the point. They will die less in abundance because:

● Cures will not be suppressed and hidden so that corporations can make money

● Starvation and poverty will be eliminated

● Robots will do dangerous work no One wants to do

● Pieces of puzzles will not sit languishing in competing labs – with no money motive, health puzzles will be worked on together and the pieces put together far more rapidly than in a money-based system

● Technology will advance more rapidly, for the same reasons medical knowledge will be pieced together

So You see… I think the problem here is that You are missing or misapprehending things I am saying. I hope I have clarified.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





"Dick" behavior is nearly always money/power/energy related.


nearly, but not always. Dickery is also quite present for no other reason than to troll, as is seen by many organizations today. Anonymous is quite literally a self-sufficient entity that has no existence other than to annoy people they disagree with.

Where does anonymous end up in your system? Well, in power. And so thus it dominates all other minds.





If You are a dick, Your status will diminish. No One will "play" with You. You will be avoided.


Assumption. Anonymous' success is clearly in contradiction to your words.




Today, many don't have the option of moving. In abundance, a tenant could just leave. Plenty of places and services to make this happen.


No, because anonymous follows you. When WBC attempted to leave, they were pursued.

Domination conquers your system once again.




Of course... In abundance there won't be landlords as there are now. Land ownership will be rather meaningless as houses and cities take advantage of the electrogravitic antigravity advantage and move to the sky.


Air space is in fact a value and floating cities will compete for it. Some will be dicks. Hell, some might shoot.




Do I seek to control anything? Do I pull any strings with how People govern Themselves locally? Regionally? Nationally? Globally? In fact… My “system” is based on chaotic governance beginning locally with global communication and access to allow for widespread awareness.


Again, anonymous has proven that in chaos, it thrives. Chaos is never permanent in human societies. networking occurs, and people dominate.




In chaos, no One has control, and the structure in the chaos will emerge, dependant on the seed the society is started on. I propose a seed aimed at giving each Human on this planet the freedom to do with Their lives what They choose and not HAVE to give energy to make Others profit.


in the face of having disposable income, free time, and no desire to advance, the youth of this generation have self organized into a borderline-terrorist organization called anonymous that has crippled industry, government, and religion alike, for no reason than for laughs.

Your system not only has no way to prevent this, but no defense against conquest by it.




Huh??? Their social subscriptions have nothing to do with the observation that Humans do things better if They like them than if They hate them with extremely high correlation. So please. Elaborate on why You made this statement…


you have no way to stop hate. Dominion will prevail.




Nothing you have said prevents the growth of dominion philosophy and its eventual conquest of minds and suppression of others.


And nothing you said deals with the fact people can get mean to people they disagree with.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)






Yeah. So?


To take a piece from religion, how many men did things for god to impress them? What stops a leader from slaughtering, say, the WBC? Of course, I will admit my own bias. I wouldn't stop the slaughter because of my hatred fro them.

Your system has nothing but consensus to stop such slaughter. And consensus is easily manipulated. Personally I'd welcome your system. Not because it would work, but because it would allow a person like me to more easily manipulate people to bring down said system.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



"Dick" behavior is nearly always money/power/energy related.

nearly, but not always. Dickery is also quite present for no other reason than to troll, as is seen by many organizations today. Anonymous is quite literally a self-sufficient entity that has no existence other than to annoy people they disagree with.


Um... Look. Dick behavior, being nearly always about money/power/energy suggests that, while We cannot be rid of dick behavior, if We remove the money/power/energy structure from Human interactions, We will end up with far fewer dicks. Or do You think these People would go around thinking of ways to disingratiate Themselves with those around Them? "Gee. I can't be a dick to My tenants... Who can I be a dick to...?"

No... People will spend time with Those who They don't have reason (in Their mind) to be a dick to. This will create a sort of "superconductor" effect in society as social friction reduces to nearly nil.

Sure, We may always have trolls. But for the most part, all They will accomplish is social paraiahhood. And rather than One being "pariah" because of One's birth status, One will EARN pariahhood with One's chosen behavior. It will be well deserved.


Where does anonymous end up in your system? Well, in power. And so thus it dominates all other minds.


DING DING DING. You just earned Your third "HUH!?! from Me. You mean the hacking group? They may choose to enhance the public, open source (and thereby, no back doors and other breaches of security) code. (I am presuming You're speaking of the hacker group...)

What They do between Themselves, as long as it doesn't break any of the three Laws... What does it matter?



If You are a dick, Your status will diminish. No One will "play" with You. You will be avoided.


Assumption. Anonymous' success is clearly in contradiction to your words.


In ABUNDANCE this will be so. There is no money/power/energy motive, and the code We use will be available for scrutiny. Besides… With no politics or money, what would the motive be in messing with Others’ machines?



Today, many don't have the option of moving. In abundance, a tenant could just leave. Plenty of places and services to make this happen.


No, because anonymous follows you. When WBC attempted to leave, they were pursued.


Ok. Now You’ve lost Me. What are You on about with Anonymous? WBC? Leave? Leave what?


Domination conquers your system once again.


I really don’t want to assess You as a nutter, here. But I am beginning to formulate that opinion. Domination of Whom over what or Whom?



Of course... In abundance there won't be landlords as there are now. Land ownership will be rather meaningless as houses and cities take advantage of the electrogravitic antigravity advantage and move to the sky.


Air space is in fact a value and floating cities will compete for it. Some will be dicks. Hell, some might shoot.


ROFL! Ok, if You took the volume of Human flesh and placed it in the Grand Canyon… It wouldn’t fill one of the small side canyons. Now… We have the whole planet We can float above, and if You placed one of Each of Us Humans evenly 100 feet up from the surface, Each would be a hundred miles from the other or more. Add levels of say 25 feet above that to about 5,000 feet – and We have enough space for a thousand times the population We presently have.

Where did You envision People shooting at others for?




Do I seek to control anything? Do I pull any strings with how People govern Themselves locally? Regionally? Nationally? Globally? In fact… My “system” is based on chaotic governance beginning locally with global communication and access to allow for widespread awareness.


Again, anonymous has proven that in chaos, it thrives. Chaos is never permanent in human societies. networking occurs, and people dominate


Again with this Anonymous stuff. They thrive in MONEY/POWER/ENERGY situations. Without that to contend over, what They do in private will not affect the Public.

(See next post)
edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: I failed tags again



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


(See post above)




In chaos, no One has control, and the structure in the chaos will emerge, dependant on the seed the society is started on. I propose a seed aimed at giving each Human on this planet the freedom to do with Their lives what They choose and not HAVE to give energy to make Others profit.


in the face of having disposable income, free time, and no desire to advance, the youth of this generation have self organized into a borderline-terrorist organization called anonymous that has crippled industry, government, and religion alike, for no reason than for laughs.


Um… I think You are misgauging the motives here. Anonymous is mostly out to fight the present system. They may have some Individuals doing things “for a lark,” but rather than be Unmotivated, They are, in fact, horrified at the evil wrought by money/power/energy scarcity and are striking back.

Man, You really don’t seem to have a good sense of how things are.


Your system not only has no way to prevent this, but no defense against conquest by it.


Except… Lack of motive, social pariahhood, open source, encouragement of the Betterment Ethic…

Yeah, except for those small things, what I propose has nothing.




Huh??? Their social subscriptions have nothing to do with the observation that Humans do things better if They like them than if They hate them with extremely high correlation. So please. Elaborate on why You made this statement…


you have no way to stop hate. Dominion will prevail.


Hatred is learned. Stop teaching it and it will dissipate.


Nothing you have said prevents the growth of dominion philosophy and its eventual conquest of minds and suppression of others.


Again… Dominion of Whom over what or Whom?


And nothing you said deals with the fact people can get mean to people they disagree with.


I can’t stop that. I can only give options for the recipients – like leave. Ignore. Talk about behind backs. Whatever. And eliminate the motivation for the vast majority of meanness I see.



Yeah. So?


To take a piece from religion, how many men did things for god to impress them? What stops a leader from slaughtering, say, the WBC? Of course, I will admit my own bias. I wouldn't stop the slaughter because of my hatred fro them.


Again, I am thinking You are lacking clarity of though – or at least the ability to express it intelligibly. I might point out, however, a “leader” who wanted to go slaughter Others would be hard pressed to find Others to go with Hume to break a Law when that “leader” has nothing but ideology to offer.

As it stands today, People follow “leaders” because They provide a meal, pay Them, force Them, and because They have no other options. In a world where We all can have what We want, why would We go stomp on Others?


Your system has nothing but consensus to stop such slaughter.


And the three Laws, and a lack of motivation, and socially earned pariahhood… Do go on…


And consensus is easily manipulated. Personally I'd welcome your system. Not because it would work, but because it would allow a person like me to more easily manipulate people to bring down said system.


Oooo! Oooo! Let Us presume My proposals, My ideas, are enacted, and plenum energy is flowing. We govern Ourselves through an open source Interweb site, posting problems and solutions there – and taking action when We can. We can order any product We want on the Interweb, and it is delivered by robot. We are looking for ways to better this planet (and by extension, the universe). We are having children because We want Them, not because We can get a bigger check, or because We have no birth control. Each of Us is doing what We love to do.

What would You do to take this “system” down?

edit on 9/9/2011 by Amaterasu because: I failed tags again



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Um... Look. Dick behavior, being nearly always about money/power/energy suggests that, while We cannot be rid of dick behavior, if We remove the money/power/energy structure from Human interactions, We will end up with far fewer dicks. Or do You think these People would go around thinking of ways to disingratiate Themselves with those around Them? "Gee. I can't be a dick to My tenants... Who can I be a dick to...?"


Why yes. We call these people New Yorkers. ahhh hahaha.

In all seriousness, there are such people. They exist. Because this is how they are bred to do so. Perhaps you can do something for some, but in the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Essentially, such people rise, and fall. They come and go. We call them many names. Psychopaths, sociopaths, etc etc. They exist. Your system is very weak on getting rid of them.




No... People will spend time with Those who They don't have reason (in Their mind) to be a dick to. This will create a sort of "superconductor" effect in society as social friction reduces to nearly nil.


Then why, whenever we talk, do I always reply until you stop replying? Because I am aggressive in what I think. Such people as me exist as well. They want friction. They feel their greatest in conflict. The act of confronting what they feel wrong and endlessly arguing. I enjoy this location, and I honestly feel the most joy in such discussions. More so do I feel joy when some listeners get up and follow me in my words and do things about it. Such is how all organizations rise, and soon later fall. But in their lifetime, they exist, and they conflict. And there will always be social conflict, and members of society who like social conflict, and civil discourse, and some youth whom will always pick up a blunt instrument and follow through with changing the system. We see this in Arabia today, Russia yesteryear, and America yesteryear that.




Sure, We may always have trolls. But for the most part, all They will accomplish is social paraiahhood. And rather than One being "pariah" because of One's birth status, One will EARN pariahhood with One's chosen behavior. It will be well deserved.


That's classicsm. That's bad.






DING DING DING. You just earned Your third "HUH!?! from Me. You mean the hacking group? They may choose to enhance the public, open source (and thereby, no back doors and other breaches of security) code. (I am presuming You're speaking of the hacker group...) What They do between Themselves, as long as it doesn't break any of the three Laws... What does it matter?


It matters a great deal. Anonymous has for some time now been more than just a hacking group, and in many ways was the proto-type of the arab spring. As to your precious laws, what happens when the mob rejects them? Because mobs come and go in sudden events, and in such events do not listen to any laws but to follow with their own mob nature. A mob is a fascinating thing. Once you master control of it, you can wield it like a blunt instrument. Sometimes I do that for local issues of trivial matters like a bad professor. Other times I've seen it used to change who nations.




In ABUNDANCE this will be so. There is no money/power/energy motive, and the code We use will be available for scrutiny. Besides… With no politics or money, what would the motive be in messing with Others’ machines?


Again. You don't like that person. I'll admit to having purposely destroyed people's lives when I absolutely despised them. I am quite angry at myself for doing so, but I did do that.




Ok. Now You’ve lost Me. What are You on about with Anonymous? WBC? Leave? Leave what?


You claim social friction will become nonexistent and people will leave each other alone. But reality tells a different tale. A tale whereby groups form spontaneously and hunt down other groups they despise. On a small scale, this is beginning to occur with anonymous and other groups such as the WBC.

Id ask you watch the movie Red State. It deals with just such an event: the eventual conquest in government via domination ideology to suppress and withhold rights to groups the government views as bad. The movie tells the tale of a government agent caught between moral lines of upholding the right to life, and the fact that the government simply doesn't believe such people deserve the right to life.

Your system has no means to prevent this. You consistently claim that laws will stop it, but never any means to do so. The reality is that the only way to do so is via an Iranian-like revolutionary guard. A group of clandestine men and women who do not follow laws, and simply exterminate individuals and groups whom try to do such things. Personally I have no ill with such fascistic tactics. But America does.





I really don’t want to assess You as a nutter, here. But I am beginning to formulate that opinion. Domination of Whom over what or Whom?


Domination of the few over the many through either secretive of outright public and popular means.




ROFL! Ok, if You took the volume of Human flesh and placed it in the Grand Canyon… It wouldn’t fill one of the small side canyons. Now… We have the whole planet We can float above, and if You placed one of Each of Us Humans evenly 100 feet up from the surface, Each would be a hundred miles from the other or more. Add levels of say 25 feet above that to about 5,000 feet – and We have enough space for a thousand times the population We presently have. Where did You envision People shooting at others for?


Populations grow with such assumption of exponential growth rates.

Fact is people will shoot today over an Earth that has plenty of room. Why would they not if they had 3d scapes to traverse instead of 2d?

It's not if I have any proof they will. It's do you have any proof they will not? Human history shows that we should assume people will, not that they will not. After all, the ancient Greeks had countless space, and could traverse anywhere from Spain to Russia, leaving monuments everywhere. yet they still chose to stay in Greece and fight over land. Not over resources, but because of honor. Can your system honestly inform how this will not happen once more?




Again with this Anonymous stuff. They thrive in MONEY/POWER/ENERGY situations. Without that to contend over, what They do in private will not affect the Public.


No, they don't. Most anon are children, with all supplies from mom and dad. Most have not a problem in the world, and are suburb rich kids with too much time on their hands. They have no worry of money, power, nor energy. They simply want to dick around. and now, as many become adults, they still do, having grown up in that culture.




Man, You really don’t seem to have a good sense of how things are.


I don't think you do. You are describing the old anonymous of several years ago. Anonymous constantly changes and has no definition but to tear down what is.




Except… Lack of motive, social pariahhood, open source, encouragement of the Betterment Ethic… Yeah, except for those small things, what I propose has nothing.


None of this has any guarantee to change anything.




Hatred is learned. Stop teaching it and it will dissipate.


Hatred is learned. But often by the self, and not by any one specifically teaching it. Just go to your local school yard. Children aren't born with preference to any emotion but fear and happiness. From that, all other emotions come about naturally, without any sort of teaching. We can teach hate. But it can also manifest itself from a location without any hate.




I can’t stop that. I can only give options for the recipients – like leave. Ignore. Talk about behind backs. Whatever. And eliminate the motivation for the vast majority of meanness I see.


Jesus had the same idea. People still murdered 20 million native Americans in his name.




Again, I am thinking You are lacking clarity of though – or at least the ability to express it intelligibly. I might point out, however, a “leader” who wanted to go slaughter Others would be hard pressed to find Others to go with Hume to break a Law when that “leader” has nothing but ideology to offer.


Tell that to Hitler, Pot, Lenin, Mao, McCarthy, and today many modern leaders. All you need is ideology and people will follow you.




As it stands today, People follow “leaders” because They provide a meal, pay Them, force Them, and because They have no other options. In a world where We all can have what We want, why would We go stomp on Others?


That's what you think. I have food money and force in my own right. I don't need that from government. I follow leaders that I do because I believe they will exterminate the bad eggs in society. I don't know if I'm some sort of national socialist or anarchist at this point. I'll admit it though. I shed no tear to the genocide of the rich and popular whom seek to demote different groups of humanity for their own gain.

Basically, if you demote your fellow man's humanity, in my eyes, you are no longer human, but an animal. And your death is irregardless to me.




And the three Laws, and a lack of motivation, and socially earned pariahhood… Do go on…


Laws can be broken. Those assigned to punish can be bribed or be go with favoritism. Mobs that promote the laws can be organized to pull them down.

Simply put, I can manipulate what you put up and bring it down.




What would You do to take this “system” down?


Probably what I've done in the past with friends. Couple years ago I helped organized a social experiment locating precise social weak points and philosophies such as 6 degrees of connection. Starting with just me, but slowly building up a team of about 20 people working for no other reason than for our own "lulz", we managed to cause a sudden cascade of mindset. The topic was abortion. See back then I was an atheist, and interested in testing the viability of a godless defense of pro life philosophy. We managed to make a sudden ~10% change in pro life vs pro choice.

Here's gallup polls from the time shortly after we did the experiment.

www.gallup.com...

See the second graph? See around 2008? I helped do that.

Granted, it's not much. But we weren't even that committed.

See when you begin to observe the human condition as much as we have, you know how to manipulate it for different purposes.

I suggest you watch BBC's Sherlock. Deals with it a great deal. Quite amazing how small pushes can topple entire ideologies.

We're thinking of doing yet another experiment soon.


edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Does anyone realize that the former lawyer and lobbyist for monsanto was appointed to the FDA?

It is a conflict of interest, which many people are not aware of. It is "old news" from 2009, but I myself only found out about his history in the past couple of months.

www.naturalnews.com...

Monsanto and cronies really do need to go.

Harm None
Peace



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
Does anyone realize that the former lawyer and lobbyist for monsanto was appointed to the FDA?


Yep, I already knew. This should be common knowledge, but of course the mass media doesn't report on it because the puppet masters tell them what and what not to report. ~SheopleNation



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



Um... Look. Dick behavior, being nearly always about money/power/energy suggests that, while We cannot be rid of dick behavior, if We remove the money/power/energy structure from Human interactions, We will end up with far fewer dicks. Or do You think these People would go around thinking of ways to disingratiate Themselves with those around Them? "Gee. I can't be a dick to My tenants... Who can I be a dick to...?"


Why yes. We call these people New Yorkers. ahhh hahaha.

In all seriousness, there are such people. They exist. Because this is how they are bred to do so. Perhaps you can do something for some, but in the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Essentially, such people rise, and fall. They come and go. We call them many names. Psychopaths, sociopaths, etc etc. They exist. Your system is very weak on getting rid of them.


Yes. Yes there are some. But by far the greatest cause of bad behavior is money/power/energy scarcity. No, We cannot eliminate these issues. No system will “get… rid of them.” And I am not seeking to solve all problems. I am seeking to MINIMISE them. My proposal would offer a world in which We see far fewer problems. If You eschew a solution because, though it radically reduces problems, it does not eliminate them… Heh. What can I say?



No... People will spend time with Those who They don't have reason (in Their mind) to be a dick to. This will create a sort of "superconductor" effect in society as social friction reduces to nearly nil.


Then why, whenever we talk, do I always reply until you stop replying? Because I am aggressive in what I think. Such people as me exist as well. They want friction. They feel their greatest in conflict. The act of confronting what they feel wrong and endlessly arguing. I enjoy this location, and I honestly feel the most joy in such discussions. More so do I feel joy when some listeners get up and follow me in my words and do things about it. Such is how all organizations rise, and soon later fall. But in their lifetime, they exist, and they conflict. And there will always be social conflict, and members of society who like social conflict, and civil discourse, and some youth whom will always pick up a blunt instrument and follow through with changing the system. We see this in Arabia today, Russia yesteryear, and America yesteryear that.


Yes. Yes, there will always be issues. BUT… With the removal of the money/power/energy scarcity, these problems will be greatly reduced. You make it sound as if it’s better to stick with this system We’re drowning in than work towards a better (if not perfect) way of doing things.



Sure, We may always have trolls. But for the most part, all They will accomplish is social paraiahhood. And rather than One being "pariah" because of One's birth status, One will EARN pariahhood with One's chosen behavior. It will be well deserved.


That's classicsm. That's bad.


That’s what I like about You, Gor… You make statements like this with nothing to back them up.

“Classicsm…” (I think You meant “classicism.”) How is what I offered “classicism,” and why is it “bad?”



DING DING DING. You just earned Your third "HUH!?! from Me. You mean the hacking group? They may choose to enhance the public, open source (and thereby, no back doors and other breaches of security) code. (I am presuming You're speaking of the hacker group...) What They do between Themselves, as long as it doesn't break any of the three Laws... What does it matter?


It matters a great deal. Anonymous has for some time now been more than just a hacking group, and in many ways was the proto-type of the arab spring. As to your precious laws, what happens when the mob rejects them? Because mobs come and go in sudden events, and in such events do not listen to any laws but to follow with their own mob nature. A mob is a fascinating thing. Once you master control of it, you can wield it like a blunt instrument. Sometimes I do that for local issues of trivial matters like a bad professor. Other times I've seen it used to change who nations.


Mobs do not form unless there is unrest. Now I am sure there will be unrest – but nothing like what We see today. And things will resolve themselves if such an occurrence actually happens. The people who care will handle it. What does YOUR system do to control for this? Oppress the People?

(See next post)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


(see above post)




In ABUNDANCE this will be so. There is no money/power/energy motive, and the code We use will be available for scrutiny. Besides… With no politics or money, what would the motive be in messing with Others’ machines?


Again. You don't like that person. I'll admit to having purposely destroyed people's lives when I absolutely despised them. I am quite angry at myself for doing so, but I did do that.


Again. No system will eliminate poor behavior. But a system of oppression is a poor choice as more problems will arise than in a free society.



Ok. Now You’ve lost Me. What are You on about with Anonymous? WBC? Leave? Leave what?


You claim social friction will become nonexistent and people will leave each other alone. But reality tells a different tale. A tale whereby groups form spontaneously and hunt down other groups they despise. On a small scale, this is beginning to occur with anonymous and other groups such as the WBC.


Not “reality.” Scarcity. In a world where evil grows – in the soil of money the love of it runs rampant – such behavior is expected in much greater quantity than in an abundant society. You are looking at how Humans behave under the yoke of a money and deciding that that behavior is caused by nothing more than random Human behavior. But the fact is that a great deal of the cause – statistically all of it – has to do with scarcity and the unrest that creates.

And as for “WBC…” I finally figured it out. A search for WBC brought nothing, but then I thought of the West(boro?) Baptist Church. Nothing will stop Them from doing what They do, but if They break a Law, Others will ensure They are tried and incarcerated – and that Their status is diminished. Who? Those who care.


Id ask you watch the movie Red State. It deals with just such an event: the eventual conquest in government via domination ideology to suppress and withhold rights to groups the government views as bad. The movie tells the tale of a government agent caught between moral lines of upholding the right to life, and the fact that the government simply doesn't believe such people deserve the right to life.


All a depiction of happenings in scarcity. Nothing examines how Humans function in abundance – except for Star Trek. But when One brings ST up, the response is, “Oh, that’s just science fiction!” No. It was far more that merely fiction. It was a study in social behavior in the advent of abundance. Sure, there were still problems, but far fewer and of less crucial nature than We have today. Humans do better when Their needs are readily met, and Their desires are mostly met as well.


Your system has no means to prevent this. You consistently claim that laws will stop it, but never any means to do so. The reality is that the only way to do so is via an Iranian-like revolutionary guard. A group of clandestine men and women who do not follow laws, and simply exterminate individuals and groups whom try to do such things. Personally I have no ill with such fascistic tactics. But America does.


You are awfully stuck on preventing problems. If all problems are not fully gone, it cannot work (as if Our system is not rife with problems). I do not claim any Law will STOP behavior. But Let’s face it, People follow Laws in general. If, in general, We did NOT follow Laws, rules, edicts, codes, acts, statutes, mandates, etc. We would have no society at all.

My mother could have benefited from the use of cannabis for the glaucoma She had. She chose to go blind rather than break the “law.” So the Laws will hold most in check. We surely will see no MORE in the way of poor choices than We do now – and in fact would see a radical drop in the problems We have. But a 90% reduction in problems isn’t good enough, I suppose. It has to be 100% or forget it, eh?



I really don’t want to assess You as a nutter, here. But I am beginning to formulate that opinion. Domination of Whom over what or Whom?


Domination of the few over the many through either secretive of outright public and popular means.


(see next post)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


(see post above)

That is about a vague a reply I have ever encountered. The “few.” Ok. Who? The boogieman and his family? How will this “domination” manifest? And how can a few dominate the many with no power over anyone but Themselves (whom They have complete control of)?



ROFL! Ok, if You took the volume of Human flesh and placed it in the Grand Canyon… It wouldn’t fill one of the small side canyons. Now… We have the whole planet We can float above, and if You placed one of Each of Us Humans evenly 100 feet up from the surface, Each would be a hundred miles from the other or more. Add levels of say 25 feet above that to about 5,000 feet – and We have enough space for a thousand times the population We presently have. Where did You envision People shooting at others for?


Populations grow with such assumption of exponential growth rates.


Um, yeah, but with the ability to have children only when wanted, with the ability to do more than watch TV and have sex as entertainment (the condition of the poor), population growth will drop. (It has been shown that middle class and rich families tend to be small – 0-3 kids – whereas poor People often have 4, 5, 6… They have no birth control, or They can get a bigger check from the government, or They are raped, or They have no education to know better… With richness flowing to all Humans, access to education, birth control, and with checks gone as a motivation, the birth rate will indeed drop.

And to fill the air space from 100 ft to 5000 feet with humans too close for comfort, I am betting Our population would have to increase 50,000 times. Likely more. Really, though They say it’s a small world…really, this is a HUGE planet and statistically speaking, We don’t exist. Can You grasp the meaning and magnitude of that statement? Statistically speaking, Humans do not exist on this planet.


Fact is people will shoot today over an Earth that has plenty of room. Why would they not if they had 3d scapes to traverse instead of 2d?


Yes. People shoot others. But it is nearly always over money/power/energy. Not over One taking over the abode of another. And with all the sky, who’s going to fight? “This is MY space here at precisely 600’ above this lake, X lat., Y long. You can’t have it!”

“I’m going to boot You out of that space! I could go anywhere else – a mile north, for example – but I want that place 600’at X lat. and Y long. above that lake, and I’m going to take it from you!” BOOM!

REALLY don’t see that as being an issue.


It's not if I have any proof they will. It's do you have any proof they will not? Human history shows that we should assume people will, not that they will not. After all, the ancient Greeks had countless space, and could traverse anywhere from Spain to Russia, leaving monuments everywhere. yet they still chose to stay in Greece and fight over land. Not over resources, but because of honor. Can your system honestly inform how this will not happen once more?


Not “proof” per se. Just logic. Humans might argue about ideology, and the best solutions, but with no land connection, arguing about a 500 cu. ft. space somewhere in Our atmosphere is not going to happen. Adjacent 500 cu. ft. spaces will do just fine. (500 cu. ft. should be plenty to contain one house and the Humans who live there).

And with 4.2 billion cubic kilometers to work with (see wiki.answers.com...'s_atmosphere ), I think We can safely say We would have plenty of room for everyOne.



Again with this Anonymous stuff. They thrive in MONEY/POWER/ENERGY situations. Without that to contend over, what They do in private will not affect the Public.



No, they don't. Most anon are children, with all supplies from mom and dad. Most have not a problem in the world, and are suburb rich kids with too much time on their hands. They have no worry of money, power, nor energy. They simply want to dick around. and now, as many become adults, they still do, having grown up in that culture.


I don’t think anyone knows just who Anonymous is, as it is nebulous and shifting always. How is it that You know so much? What “dicking around” have They done? All things claimed by Anon have been aimed at corrupt institutions with specific behaviors stated as the reason for the “attack.” That doesn’t sound like mere “dick(ing) around.”

Please elaborate.

(see post below)



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join