Forum Post: [DELETED]
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 17, 2012, 10:24 p.m. EST by anonymous
()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
[DELETED]
Public Forum
2 comments 3 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
I am a woman in my early thirties and have been unemployed from around the time I turned 30 years old. Women are here and voicing their opinion about the insanity going on in this world. It's a bit sick how the disparity income is getting bigger because idiots are out there attacking people who are trying to survive themselves. People have to work together to get things done and stop allowing them to fool working people into attacking each other. People would think I was doing well and I was like WTF? I haven't had a job in over 3 years with no income...so what do you think?
[Deleted]
[Removed]
Proteus,you are mistaken-there are numerous females posting on this forum-round up the usual suspects.There are also young people here-even young female people.You will have to excuse the chaos because we are attempting to grapple with a conundrum so monstrously difficult that it defies description,let alone solution.The slaves of the Antibellum American South described it in one of their songs called Spirituals**So high-you can't get over it-so wide-you can't get around it-so low you can't get under it-Oh,Lord-Rock of my soul.As for what I think of the young people I met when I went to Zucotti Park during the Occupation-I AM IN AWE OF THEM-for their intelligence,their erudition,their ingenuity,and their courage.I have every confidence in them,because they told me-we will never give up-so don't you either,ever give up or stop trying to tell people-ANOTHER WORLD IS POSSIBLE.
What a nice post, trashyharry.
[Deleted]
I'll take a world that has an economic system that works for ALL people, not just the wealthy and corporations. I'll take a world that is love-based, not fear-based. I'd start there.
[Deleted]
Don't we all wish we could tell the difference? Good luck with your book.
I'll hazard that we all can sometimes, often and even most of the time IF we search with an open heart and mind ~*~
amor vincit omnia ...
I think you are right. I certainly know I am sure in a few instances in my life.
[Deleted]
Surely you have experienced true love, Proteus. I wish that for you and for everyone.
[Deleted]
Thank you Proteus-not many people a good opinion of me and I appreciate your kind words.
[Deleted]
[Removed]
Here is where one woman went-
via a romney/ryan type of anti-abortion law
(CNN) -- The mother of a pregnant leukemia patient who died after her chemotherapy was delayed over anti- abortion laws is accusing doctors of not putting her daughter's health first. The 16-year-old's plight attracted worldwide attention after she had to wait for chemotherapy because of an abortion ban in the Dominican Republic.
Doctors were hesitant to give her chemotherapy because such treatment could terminate the pregnancy -- a violation of the Dominican Constitution, which bans abortion. Some 20 days after she was admitted to the hospital, she finally started receiving treatment.
She died Friday, a hospital official said.
At the time the treatment started, Rosa Hernandez, the girl's mother, said she tried to convince doctors and the Dominican government to make an exception so that her daughter's life could be saved. "My daughter's life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law ... but my daughter's health is first," Hernandez said. The teen died from complications of the disease, said Dr. Antonio Cabrera, the legal representative for the hospital.
"They have killed me, I'm dead, dead. I'm nothing," her mother said. " She was the reason for my existence. I no longer live. Rosa has died. Let the world know that Rosa is dead."
Rosa Hernandez, the girl's mother: "I know that (abortion) is a sin ... but my daughter's health is first."
The patient was 13 weeks pregnant.
Her body rejected a blood transfusion and did not respond to the chemotherapy, and her condition worsened overnight, Cabrera said.
She then suffered a miscarriage early Friday, followed by cardiac arrest, and doctors were unable to revive her.
Representatives from the Dominican Ministry of Health, the Dominican Medical College, the hospital and the girl's family had talked for several days before deciding to go forward with the chemotherapy.
The case sparked renewed debate over abortion in the Dominican Republic, with some lawmakers calling on officials to reconsider the abortion ban.
According to Article 37 of the Dominican Constitution, "the right to life is inviolable from the moment of conception and until death." Dominican courts have interpreted this as a strict mandate against abortion.
[Removed]
"Where are The Women"--'Ou est Les Femmes' re "current political and financial problems" ?!!!
Si vous 'cherchez les femmes', regardez ici si'il vous plait :
Mon ami, have you ever heard of Ayn Rand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand ) ?!!
Have you ever heard of Blythe Masters ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters) ?!
You have some sort of point to be honest ... but don't put women 'on pedestals' which are only good for falling off !! 'Man is born of Woman' ...
ergo - dux femina facti ...
[Deleted]
There are Many Good Women on this forum IF that is what you mean.
ad iudicium ...
[Deleted]
"Women are critical to me" too !!! One in particular & I always hope that she knows so !!
I really liked all your comments and this thread very much indeed, 'btw' !
Merci beaucoup mon ami, salut et n'oubliez pas s'il vos plait que ...
amor vincit omnia ..~*~..
[Deleted]
Alors ! Oui, vraiment !! Vive l'amour et vive la vie !!!
Amour est l'essence de la vie, n'est ce pas ?!!
Je l'aime et je suis tres content, mon ami !
pax, amor et lux ; semper et ubique ...
[Deleted]
"for ever and everywhere" ..~*~..
You see Frenchy, I'm a Limey & these Yanks think we're crazy talkin' 'bout "love" n' all ! Consider : a person could spend a life time looking for love and NOT have wasted it !!
salut ...
[Removed]
Useless Spamming Fukwit # 2 !!
caveat ...
[Removed]
[Removed]
@ "Obomney3/Odromo3" & before your sorry (x) gets banned, consider & deliberate with care that :
In that sack of shit that passes for your damaged brain, you actually imagine that you are doing something worthwhile or vaguely useful, relevant or important !!!
Worra deluded and useless Utter Fukwit you are !!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... & ... Breathe !
way too funny for latin ...
[Removed]
[Deleted]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Useless Spamming Fukwit # 1 !
caveat ....
we all have gonads
There's a train from Montreal to NYC, isn't there? Sept. 15-17 would be a good time to see, and meet some of the courageous women in OWS. You can always add a new chapter in your book. ;-)
[Deleted]
Yes many of us here get dragged into, and even initiate silly political discussions here, including me.. I have met many of the young men, and women in OWS, and what you read on this forum is not always that indicative of those people that I have met personally. There is an age difference between the people here, and those people in the streets of NYC. We are older, and many of us here only know how to play on the old field. Admittedly, it took me a while to understand, and appreciate what the young people want. I do now, and I know it is very close to what you want. Good Night
Actually, I've noted your notice, too. I think we need to consider that in general, males are not as nestfully capable as women are, despite the fact that we love our castle. Our economic concerns, in the form of excess, as both comfort and security, are all driven by female desire; fiction permeates the mind but at the core, women want more. And they're not here because they're busy pursuing that with an intent to capitalize wherever possible - women in general, despite all words and myth - do not want equality in their lives, only a greater access.
[Deleted]
Well the original mantra was we are the "same and therefore equal." At some point people like myself, concluded that that really didn't appear to be the case, women were decidedly "different but equal." Gloria Steinem has since recanted her original statement. What was most interesting to me is that the entire women's movement existed almost wholly as a media circus - its presence was in celebrity status gained through newspaper articles, magazines, television - it lacked the stage, the real life characters, the actual life and death participation of say, a Vietnam. The equality women sought eventually revealed itself to be a primarily economic concern and where difference was most notable was in our financial district which is a substantively male yet gender neutral environment and also in the upper echelons of corporate America, and in military command, which are by the very nature of the machine itself, male dominant. Of course, the movement led to enhanced legislation and the final and eventual definition of sexual harassment, within an economic framework, which certainly has relevance but yet is often leveraged as the "race card."
I took these issues all the way back... what I found in colonial America was the admiration of virtue, a word no longer present in our vernacular, which had in male deference afforded women a much greater voice, more leverage, than one might suspect. Women emerged as very active and capable in economic roles, and very vocal in our Puritan courts, many were very vocal in day-to-day life, often to point of offense - there was no fear of males even in the form of magistrate - and the "reality" that emerged in the form of a vision, supported by documentation, was the distinct impression that the male/ female dynamic of personal interaction had changed very little over the last four hundred years.
But there is substantive difference that has since been injected the result of the media circus of the 60s, which led many to great fortune. Do you see virtue anywhere? What was once a centerpiece of the human experience, as the measure of that which we most highly esteem, no longer exists. What this translates to is the devaluation of women, the sexual power they once possessed is gone - it does not exist. And men once again rule it over young women in sexual form - we have that highly enhanced, and thus adorned, sexual form as our evidence; they must advertize.
Sexual power is a pendulum that swings in accordance with evolutionary need, at times of perceived population stress there is greater need of sexual freedom, a lessening of power. I think this pendulum has swung back and forth for thousands of years and certainly the sexual revolution of our 60s was not the first in America; in fact, it was the third that I have documented.
I don't believe women will assume a primary role here; the world of war is not their world and [we think] we are at war. And gay or straight makes no difference - women are the nurturers, they inform us, guide us, motivate and inspire us, to a greater [capitalistic] achievement for the purpose of nesting; it's all about the children. And without them were are both naught, and not. (So to some extent I consider this presence a measure of veracity.)
I wouldn't say that equality is a wrong view - it's a correct view - what I would say is that the male/ female dynamic can't be mandated in the form of legislation; it lives in the personal dynamic known as Love.
Let me put this another way, all social movements require the presence of women. I admire your intuitive ability, and regard, in the search of perceptive vision.
[Deleted]
Thanks...
[Deleted]
When we turn to colonial correspondence, between men and men, and men and women, the word we most oft encounter is virtue. Men were not saying she's extremely intelligent or she has a hot bod, they were saying she is a person of impeccable virtue - a highly esteemed quality. Virtue is the antithesis of ego, it is the humbling of ego, it incorporates an ethical neighborly "goodness," but virtue and charity were themselves the ideal - to be charitable was to walk in the way of Jesus, a virtual imitatio christi, there was and is no higher ethical measure; for those idealistic, this "purity" was the ideal.
The human race is sexually driven; when women withhold sex it attains higher value, men must give more for it, it becomes a tool of negotiation, and a vital one since the entire human race is dependent upon it. For the past forty years sexuality has been so freely given that women have lost all power, it has no value - they must now compete against each other to attract men through increased sexual advertizement and an "open" willingness to perform the most outrageous acts. In "freeing" women, we have enslaved them to the most intimate desires of men. Women must regain this power, and men must afford them the opportunity, if they are to be perceived as "equal."
While it is true that women of power can be extremely cruel and brutal, again I would suggest that this is related to the loss of virtue because it is the product of life experience. They are the anomaly - highly egotistical and power enthralled - they are not the norm, nor the ideal.
Women are going to find little fulfillment in the world of resource acquisition simply because it does not align at all with innate desire which is focused entirely on the dynamic of the human relationship - in short they are the nurturers, men are the thieves of the night.
We must learn humility and there is only one force on earth that has ever been capable of humbling mankind. And we must relearn the freedom of silence, to speak in greater volume through a perception born of that humility.
"Equality" is but a deficiency of language, it fails us in that it lacks - not defies - succinct definition. We must simply apply the logician, the critical thinker, to an articulated discovery. New words, new nouns, of more precise definition can and will emerge.
I will say no more... although I am open to all input - I invite and actively seek all input - I abhor the obvious vying for minds of the lesser beings that inhabit today's media circus.
I think we agree on this thing of "ego."
[Deleted]
[Removed]
There are some very courageous women in OWS.
[Deleted]
Most of the women in OWS are young, and determined to live in a totally different world than we now do. Two of the people I admire most are women, Margaret Chase Smith, who was the first to speak out against the ugliness of McCarthyism, and Brooksley Born who stood up to several of the most powerful presidential, economic advisers in insisting the derivative markets should be regulated. They weren't, but she was proven right.
[Deleted]
Yes Joe McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin in the 1950s who was a demagogue. In a very famous speech just four months after McCarthy started his reign of terror, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Maine gave a very famous speech called the Declaration of Conscience Speech. The most famous line of it was, "I will not ride The Four Horsemem of Calumny...Fear...Ignorance...Bigotry...and Smear to political victory..." Both her and McCarthy were both republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Conscience
don't forget fractional loaning and interest
ok...you got me googling now
sorry
I don't know if Brooksley Born stood up to those
but that is how we end up owing the rich everything
She definitely did stand up to Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, and Arthur Levitt. They took the power to regulate derivatives away from her little agency, the CFTC. Only at that point she resigned, and only Levitt, years later said that they should have listened to her...And that is how it might already be too late...
it's never too late
as long as you don't open that can of worms
Don't forget about Elizabeth Warren and Jane Adams.
Jane Adams?
Oops, i meant Jane Addams, a home state favorite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Addams
She was quite the woman. In 1911 the Triangle Shirt-Waist Factory fire, where 146 people died, 129 of them being women, served as the impetus for the ILGWU, and in workers rights in general. That in turn even emboldened women in the suffrage movement. Ironically Washington Square Park which is across the street from that building , is where OWS often has demonstrations/events.
On top of the beautiful arch in the park, there is a quote from George Washington. It reads: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God." I thought about how prophetic that was when I read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
You have probably read more English literature than a significant fraction of the young adult US population. I have seen even news articles confuse "its" and "it's"... though maybe just Yahoo which might not require editorial review.
http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/05/need-for-reality-interpretation-in.html
(Also http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/statistical-argument-for-discarding.html, etc..)
7 out of 10 books... you don't even provide a summary of the previous ones. In the US, and probably in many other countries, people see unemployment as the most important issue:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149453/Unemployment-Emerges-Important-Problem.aspx
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2012/05/29/nobody-really-cares-about-deficits-its-the-economy-stupid/
Your book summary does not even hint at how you would fix this. If your answer is "everyone should be nice to each other", that isn't enough.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Your books might help people, but on the other hand they might feel their problems are different. It is difficult for anyone to say without reading them—which, of course, takes time.
I feel it is sometimes useful to point out the difference between the classical meaning of the debate and the dialectic. The first is for scoring points; the second is for progress.
On the possible 'degeneration of society', see the first link in my previous comment. It contains no outside links since it was written for possible publication on a news site.
You seem to be saying that the issues that people do seem to express interest in are not as important as the ones in your book.
I think the online connections are somewhat separate from the ones that lead to people reading books. This is even more true for this forum, which was intended for planning of the OWS movement and specifically not meant for debate. Someone who is living in a tent and spends their days in protests will not read a book unless it has clear and immediate relevance to their goals.
When it comes to unemployment, I feel I was able to link it to something which should have concerned everyone—"terrorist" type attacks, which includes the shooting at a theater showing Batman last month. If your theory of how society works does not include such events, I would say that it is deficient.
I should note that one of the points made is that the current structure of society implies that there is an important problem which, until now, no one has had success in dealing with. I wouldn't want to spam you with links but this means that even the extremely wealthy have failed at this. As well as economists, which is a bit easier to point out since people generally think that economists are supposed to know how to fix unemployment.
(Also, the description of changes in signal accuracy is somewhat similar to the concept of "reflexivity" by the well-known George Soros)
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
What makes you think anyone considers the current system the best possible one for society?
You really aren't good at making people care about what you write. You said, "do you think I will bring solutions to unemployment? yes, but not for ego reality[...]" but haven't even given a description of how any of your ideas would accomplish this.
Equally, you haven't shown conclusively that there is anything wrong with the current system.
The internet has lots of free stuff. This should surprise no one. Simply making the books you write free will not convince anyone to read them. The problem for many people who are trying to accomplish things is information overload, and you don't even seem to be aware of the time costs that reading your books would incur.
Now, it is very possible that the reason many people read books is for 'signalling' that they are intelligent, so they can talk about those books with other people... so if you want to get your books published you should probably acknowledge this and the fact that most of the books people read don't really lead to important changes happening in the world.
I have never said I wanted to take a stroll in another world. Even if this world changes, it is still just this world—reality.
(Also, you can't really expect people in the US to care if France is not an enjoyable place to live. "Americans" are self-centered like that.)
[Deleted]
Your request is to read your books, with no explanation of how that would benefit me. Apologies if I don't have time for that.
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” –Albert Einstein. (Who also supported socialism btw.)
[Deleted]
It is more likely people will consider what you have written if unemployment is fixed. People with jobs are currently becoming exhausted with work; people without jobs spend all their time filling out hundreds of job applications for no reward.
As stupid as that.
Then don't read them. I linked them because it seemed like you would be interested in them; it looks like I was wrong.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Your book does not take into consideration the advancing technologies which will shatter how we do things whether we want to or not. 100 years is a very long time, especially at the rate that technology is advancing nowadays. The future is a society which uses computers and robots to make its decisions. The singularity is near.
[Deleted]
In fact, I did read your book, and it does not take into consideration the technological storm which will happen in a few decades.
The idea of robots and computers more intelligent than people is not a bullshit song. It's happening all around us as we speak and has already started to impact our lives. Computers are better than us at chess, and IBM's Watson as won on Jeopardy against the best human players. Life expectancy has already doubled in the last 200 years, and it will continue to do so faster and faster.
Are we going to do interstellar travel, are we going to colonize mars? As things are going now, I would say no. We will send robots, not ourselves. As for politics, the problem nowadays is that many decisions are made without proper knowledge of data. For example, people are fighting over whether Global Warming is real because we don't have proper data and strong enough simulations to show that it probably is. Similarly, economic decisions are made pretty much as trial and error. We don't have the power to know what a tax cut will do because we cannot take into consideration all the variables. We don't have hardware powerful enough to calculate all the ramifications.
IBM is currently working with medical researchers to create a system capable of making rigorous diagnosis by analyzing a person's symptoms against the wealth of medical knowledge that already exists. This will be much more powerful than a doctor looking at you and judging the situation by what he knows. He might not know about the latest developments for example. This system will be able to search everything that exists in terms of medical knowledge, a pool of data that keeps getting bigger as we make more research.
Similarly, the future of politics is having systems like Watson analyzing current trends and making predictions based on facts, not based on a trial and error system. Already, this is happening. A group in Toronto demonstrated that it's possible to run an algorithm and analyze one's friends on Facebook to know if a person is gay. The result is a staggering 95% accurate.
All the fields are coming together very fast. We are entering a time when computers will bring all the knowledge together in an understandable system. This will give huge power to make valuable decisions. Next time we apply a tax or give a grant to a company, it should not be based on the thinking of a person, but based on rigorous objective analysis by computer simulations.
BTW - If you want to be taken seriously as a professional writer, you'll have to learn to accept criticism and to debate issues without resorting to childish gimmicks based around name calling. We aren't in the schoolyard after all.
[Deleted]
My argument is that you don't take into consideration how technology will completely change the future. I made this argument after reading your book. There is no lie, only you cursing and screaming like a child instead of discussing your book like an adult. When you publish something it becomes public and you have to be ready to defend it against criticism with more than gratuitous and childlike insults. Your writing in a serious forum here. Don't ruin your reputation by acting like a spoiled child who can only accept positive reinforcement and who sulks at even the slightest criticism.
[Deleted]
Yes, the point is you don't take into consideration that these things are already being built! Simulation systems that can make powerful decisions for us are ALREADY being built and used. This is what you fail to recognize.
For example, your idea of a computer based voting system is useless in a world with powerful decision making computer systems since there isn't even a reason to vote anymore. Right now you vote for the dems or the cons for what? So that a human team can make a decision based on their values which either come from being dem or con. In the very near future, decisions like cutting taxes etc... will not be made by considering simple values and using a trial or error method, a computer will make the best decision.
Soon, we will not vote for the "best" president, we will instead work on creating better software and hardware to help us make our decisions. Then those machines will take over.
The problem with your book is not that you don't talk about upcoming technology, it's that you fail to recognize it's power and the drastic changes it will bring to the game.
Your vision resembles the ideas of the Venus Project, but we are already years passed that type of thinking.
You think like a "classic", when post-modernity is already ending...
[Deleted]
That is because of your simple minded thinking of yesteryears. First off, these machines will not really be making decisions for us since they are essentially an extension of ourselves. In essence, they are us. We will have programmed them and made them.
But really, this is already happening today. It's not a question of whether we accept it or not (this is what you fail to understand). There are many systems "making" decisions for us every single day of our lives. There are algorithms all around you that make decisions for you all the time. The difference with the future is that these algorithms will be more powerful and thus will be able to make many more decisions for us, many of which will be more long term decisions.
A simple example is when you ride a plane. There is an on-board system that auto-corrects for turbulence. If a gust of wind hits the plane on the left, the plane will tilt as per the algorithms calculations to make sure the plane remains in the correct position. The system is making the decision, not the pilot.
There is nothing to fear from a computer system which can decide what to do at every turn to create a society with the best economy, environmental friendliness, stability, etc...
Your technophobia comes from classical thinking. There was once a time when people were afraid of using computers to do their accounting. My grandfather is such a person. It comes from the illusion that you have more power if you make all the tiny decisions yourself. Truth is, you don't. An accountant using a powerful system to make all kinds of predictions and calculations is much more powerful than one who does everything manually even though the latter might be working on a lower level of management.
You must shed the simplistic thinking patterns of yesteryears, and pull your mind into a new frame of thinking pattern. We are in 2012, not 1012...
[Deleted]
Good luck with your outdated books.