we live in a corporate dictatorship

Collin · May 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

LOL...it never gets old

Actually, it does get old. It's a ridiculous argument and it is used, again and again, as a means to ignore the point that is being made. One might even say it's childish.

my2hands · May 2008

polaris wrote:

are you saying one cannot be enlightened by what is on a television?

1. yes, you can be educated via things on television. thats the television i like to watch actually. but i understand what television is and why it is there. it is there to entertain me. and sometimes you come across some good edutainment in the process

farfromglorified · May 2008

Collin wrote:

Actually, it does get old. It's a ridiculous argument and it is used, again and again, as a means to ignore the point that is being made. One might even say it's childish.

The point that was being made was that no one should buy things they don't need to survive. That's a pretty stupid thing to say on an electronic message board, the existence of which depends on countless items bought by people for reasons other than survival. Obviously this person doesn't even believe their own bullshit.

People here struggle time and time again with the concepts of "need" and "necessity", too often failing to understand that both of those words are not absolute concepts, but rather measures against standards that too often remain unnamed. To say "I need x" is a statment that begs the question: for what? Against survival, "need" begs a very small list of things.

Collin · May 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

The point that was being made was that no one should buy things they don't need to survive. That's a pretty stupid thing to say on an electronic message board, the existence of which depends on countless items bought by people for reasons other than survival. Obviously this person doesn't even believe their own bullshit.

People here struggle time and time again with the concepts of "need" and "necessity", too often failing to understand that both of those words are not absolute concepts, but rather measures against standards that too often remain unnamed. To say "I need x" is a statment that begs the question: for what? Against survival, "need" begs a very small list of things.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. But it seems rather silly to think he actually meant survival in the sense of living out in the woods with a two sticks and a stone, because if that's your standard you really don't need anything at all. Is it really that hard to imagine he might have meant survival in today's society? And yes, believe it or not, to survive in today's society a computer is a necessity for many people.

When I read statements like his, I immediately know or at least have a general idea of what he's saying and even though I could also point out that he doesn't "need" a computer to live, I realize that's not what he meant and doing so would only distract attention from his real argument. And I might be mistaken here but I think he's referring to massive consumerism. To give a concrete example people don't "need" five TVs, people don't "need" 4 cars, people don't "need" a huge mansion... However, people might need a computer for their job, they might need a house to live in...

Actually, the rest of his post explains it quite clearly what he meant. But I suppose saying "you don't need a computer" is much easier than actually discussing what he suggested.

angelica · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

...i understand what television is and why it is there. it is there to entertain me. and sometimes you come across some good edutainment in the process

This is your view of what you think television is, as opposed to the next guy's view.

Many see it as a very effective platform for information and to be used for the betterment of humanity.

Others think that if a specific group...the media on television, for example...claim they are fair and objective, that they are to be held to that standard. It's all about the context.

Because you see one way does not invalidate another way. People with all intents and purposes are in television or watch television, all for different reasons.

my2hands · May 2008

angelica wrote:

Because you see one way does not invalidate another way.

tell that to the OP

farfromglorified · May 2008

Collin wrote:

I don't really disagree with what you're saying. But it seems rather silly to think he actually meant survival in the sense of living out in the woods with a two sticks and a stone, because if that's your standard you really don't need anything at all. Is it really that hard to imagine he might have meant survival in today's society? And yes, believe it or not, to survive in today's society a computer is a necessity for many people.

No, it's really not. Millions of people do not have computers and manage not to starve or suddenly burst into flames.

A computer is a necessity in today's society for all sorts of things, but not for survival! Again, when we use words like "need" or "necessity", we have to understand what they mean. They imply a requirement against a standard. I need a computer to respond to your post. I need a double-shot latte to feel cool. I need a plasma TV to impress my friends. I don't need any of those things to survive.

When I read statements like his, I immediately know or at least have a general idea of what he's saying and even though I could also point out that he doesn't "need" a computer to live, I realize that's not what he meant and doing so would only distract attention from his real argument. And I might be mistaken here but I think he's referring to massive consumerism. To give a concrete example people don't "need" five TVs, people don't "need" 4 cars, people don't "need" a huge mansion... However, people might need a computer for their job, they might need a house to live in...

Actually, the rest of his post explains it quite clearly what he meant. But I suppose saying "you don't need a computer" is much easier than actually discussing what he suggested.

I think we are discussing the above, so it's kind of disproving your point. Anyway, do you see the problem with these fuzzy applications of the word "need"? Of course no one "needs" five TVs, except the guy who has five TVs will probably give you the same equivocations about them as you're now giving about computers. Personally, I own probably 50 computers. Do I need them? Absolutely not! However, are they linked in ways to my own survival at a given standard and my happiness to a certain extent? Sure.

The unfortunate consequence of debating "need" against fuzzy standards is that one simply seeks to impose one's values on others. I can invent all sorts of reasons why I need my computers, but certainy you don't need your millions of dollars or your 5 bedroom house or your fancy new watch. The fact of the matter is that people seek out the things that make them happy and absolutely should be allowed to do so based on their standards. And if they amass material fortune expecting joy and find nothing but misery there, so be it. Why should I care? If any of us believes we have a right to seek out happiness on our own standards, then we absolutely need to have the ability to do so without others imposing their definitions of happiness or need upon us.

Between the religious zealots, the Marxists, and even many of the self-proclaimed capitalists, far too many people have been made to suffer the foolish and contradictory standards and concomittant guilt of someone else's definition of "need". Catholicism told me I didn't need to have sex. Maxists told me I didn't need to have wealth. Capitalists told me I didn't need to question their abilities. Turns out that when I challenged each of those assertions and acquired the things they told me I didn't need, I found some of the greatest joys I've every experienced. I accepted my own standards of need against my own goals of happiness, and I found success there. Is that the path for everyone? Probably not. But it was the path for me, and I would much rather see everyone able to follow their path, for better or worse, than attempts by anyone to apply their standard to all.

angelica · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

tell that to the OP

You recognize the validity of different views, then?

NMyTree · May 2008

Seems to me everyone in this thread needs a hug:D

angelica · May 2008

NMyTree wrote:

Seems to me everyone in this thread needs a hug:D

I'm in!!!

((((((HUGS))))))) to everyone and especially to you, NMyTree....and my2hands.....!!

El_Kabong · May 2008

my2hands wrote:

tell that to the OP

more baseless comments like my unfair treatment of obama supporters which no one can give any specifics on?

fanch75 · May 2008

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/82-hating-corporations/

Stuff White People Like
#82 Hating Corporations
March 5, 2008 by clander

One of the more popular white person activities of the past fifteen years is attempting to educate others on the evils of multi-national corporations. White people love nothing more than explaining to you how Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Microsoft, Halliburton are destroying the Earth’s culture and resources.

While the growth of multi-national corporations can be attributed to a number of complex social, economic and political factors, many white people prefer to take the word of two trusted sources: No Logo and AdBusters.

Published in 2000, No Logo has been responsible for more white person “enlightenment” than any book since the burning of the library at Alexandria. By reading this one magic book, white people are able to get a full grasp on the evils of multi-national corporations and then regurgitate it to friends and family.

Advanced white people will supplement No Logo with a subscription to AdBusters, where they will learn how to subvert corporate culture and return it to the masses. Specifically, this means taking ads and redoing them to give a negative message about a product. Apparently the belief is that when other people see this ad, they will be hit with an epiphany that their entire existence has been a Matrix-style manufactured universe.

If you plan to engage in lengthy conversations or get high with white people it is recommended that you read No Logo or one issue of AdBusters. Failing that, it is acceptable to buy a copy to leave on your coffee table. When white people see it, they will recognize you as someone who can see through the advertising and has a proper perspective on life.

When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers, Target or Ikea in the same breath as the companies mentioned earlier.White people prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like.

Following these simple steps can help you gain the trust and respect of white people in a relatively short period of time.

angelica · May 2008

fanch75 wrote:

When engaging in a conversation about corporate evils it is important to NEVER, EVER mention Apple Computers...

Alright...I object...

some of us white people actually perpetuate both Apple Computers AND advertising in one fell swoop!! (see "Pushing the Envelope" thread, and linked advertising for Apple computers...)

Collin · May 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's really not. Millions of people do not have computers and manage not to starve or suddenly burst into flames.

Ah, there you go again. Yes, farfromglorified, you are right, millions of people do not starve and do not burst into flames even though they do not own a computer. Thank you for showing me that.

A computer is a necessity in today's society for all sorts of things, but not for survival! Again, when we use words like "need" or "necessity", we have to understand what they mean. They imply a requirement against a standard. I need a computer to respond to your post. I need a double-shot latte to feel cool. I need a plasma TV to impress my friends. I don't need any of those things to survive.

Well, if your point is that we only need oxygen, nutrition, water and a few other things to survive, then you're right. But that's not what I was discussing.

I think we are discussing the above, so it's kind of disproving your point. Anyway, do you see the problem with these fuzzy applications of the word "need"? Of course no one "needs" five TVs, except the guy who has five TVs will probably give you the same equivocations about them as you're now giving about computers. Personally, I own probably 50 computers. Do I need them? Absolutely not! However, are they linked in ways to my own survival at a given standard and my happiness to a certain extent? Sure.

I was talking about survival in the Western society. Now, of course you can again cite the few examples of bums who live on the streets without anything, but that's not what I mean.

Surviving to a lot of people simply means making sure they can put food on the table. That requires money in today's society. To gain money one must have an income. Some jobs, or more and more jobs require a computer, thus to the people who work these jobs computers are a necessity to do their jobs, which they earn money with, which they use to buy food.

You could tell people who need a computer for their jobs, that they don't need it to survive and you'd be right. But they do need food. And in our Western society food costs money. So one might say they need money to survive, unless they can get food without paying for it.

Now if we're talking about survival in this sense, could you explain to me how or why one might need five TVs or a huge mansion?

The unfortunate consequence of debating "need" against fuzzy standards is that one simply seeks to impose one's values on others. I can invent all sorts of reasons why I need my computers, but certainy you don't need your millions of dollars or your 5 bedroom house or your fancy new watch. The fact of the matter is that people seek out the things that make them happy and absolutely should be allowed to do so based on their standards. And if they amass material fortune expecting joy and find nothing but misery there, so be it. Why should I care? If any of us believes we have a right to seek out happiness on our own standards, then we absolutely need to have the ability to do so without others imposing their definitions of happiness or need upon us.

Some people might find happiness in killing other people. Some might find happiness in stealing your stuff. Some might find happiness in throwing garbage all over your front lawn.

Ah, these are criminal offenses you say? But isn't that an imposed standard as well? Why should you get to pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink? Why do you have the right to trample all over this world in your pursuit of happiness? What if your defintion of happiness makes me unhappy or worse my pursuit of happiness impossible?

Don't kid yourself, someone's will is always imposed on others.

edit: also you'll see how roland mentions in his post how he wishes to break free from that cycle, which is imposed on him, as much as possible. That means he isn't really imposing his will on you but rather looking for ways to escape the will or definition of happiness you impose on him.

And futhermore, the good ole "you don't need a computer" is also used when people are not talking about "survival'

farfromglorified · May 2008

Collin wrote:

I was talking about survival in the Western society. Now, of course you can again cite the few examples of bums who live on the streets without anything, but that's not what I mean.

I can also cite an example of a man I used to work for who is worth about $200,000,000 who wouldn't even know how to turn on a computer or a cell phone, let alone use one.

Surviving to a lot of people simply means making sure they can put food on the table. That requires money in today's society. To gain money one must have an income. Some jobs, or more and more jobs require a computer, thus to the people who work these jobs computers are a necessity to do their jobs, which they earn money with, which they use to buy food.

You could tell people who need a computer for their jobs, that they don't need it to survive and you'd be right. But they do need food. And in our Western society food costs money. So one might say they need money to survive, unless they can get food without paying for it.

LOL...so your contention is that, if all computers simply disappeared off of our desks one night, we'd all starve the next day? Please.

Yes, many people's jobs require computers and many people (myself included) would not have our given occupation without computers. Yet absent those computers and occupations, I think most of us would still eat.

Now if we're talking about survival in this sense, could you explain to me how or why one might need five TVs or a huge mansion?

By your logic, it's not hard. Simply link your TVs or your mansion somehow to your occupation and *bingo*...death averted.

Realistically, however, a person might say they need 5 TVs to "stay informed" or to "stay sane" or to "keep their kids happy" or to "watch Lou Dobbs and play Call of Duty 4 at the same time".

Some people might find happiness in killing other people. Some might find happiness in stealing your stuff. Some might find happiness in throwing garbage all over your front lawn.

Ah, these are criminal offenses you say? But isn't that an imposed standard as well? Why should you get to pollute the air I breathe and the water I drink? Why do you have the right to trample all over this world in your pursuit of happiness? What if your defintion of happiness makes me unhappy or worse my pursuit of happiness impossible?

Don't kid yourself, someone's will is always imposed on others.

edit: also you'll see how roland mentions in his post how he wishes to break free from that cycle, which is imposed on him, as much as possible. That means he isn't really imposing his will on you but rather looking for ways to escape the will or definition of happiness you impose on him.

And futhermore, the good ole "you don't need a computer" is also used when people are not talking about "survival'

Someone's will is not necessarily imposed on others. But if you believe the path to happiness is found in imposing on others, I have absolutely no problem with that. Pollute away! Throw trash on my lawn! However, they can't then turn around and suggest they have a right to clean air or clean lawns. Whether or not their actions are "criminal" doesn't concern me. Whether or not their actions are consistent with their own values does.

LikeAnOcean · May 2008

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Nothing changes???

That's a load of shit. Sorry.

What has gotten better in the last 10 years because of the internet? People did more before the internet to protest war during Vietnam..

People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.

With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.

Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.

Abookamongstthemany · May 2008

LikeAnOcean wrote:

What has gotten better in the last 10 years because of the internet? People did more before the internet to protest war during Vietnam..

People have opinions. They read and agree with what they want. Sure messages get out, but people only consider and read the messages they agree with.. I'm still not seeing how the internet has helped anything.

With the greatness of the internet age, we still managed to elect Bush two times.

Like I asked, give me an example of what has gotten better and my opinion will sway. I hope I'm wrong because I can't think of anything.

You've got to be kidding me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Collin · May 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

I can also cite an example of a man I used to work for who is worth about $200,000,000 who wouldn't even know how to turn on a computer or a cell phone, let alone use one.

Congratulations!

LOL...so your contention is that, if all computers simply disappeared off of our desks one night, we'd all starve the next day? Please.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if you took a person's computer away he would die of starvation the very next day. Or he'd burst into flames.

:rolleyes:

Yes, many people's jobs require computers and many people (myself included) would not have our given occupation without computers. Yet absent those computers and occupations, I think most of us would still eat.

Tell me how most of you would eat without a means to pay for food.

By your logic, it's not hard. Simply link your TVs or your mansion somehow to your occupation and *bingo*...death averted.

Death averted! Hooray! Spontaneous combustion averted!

Your job either requires those things or not. Most people do not have jobs that require multiple Tvs and huge mansions. I'm sure you know somebody who does have a job like that :rolleyes:

Realistically, however, a person might say they need 5 TVs to "stay informed" or to "stay sane" or to "keep their kids happy" or to "watch Lou Dobbs and play Call of Duty 4 at the same time".

We were talking about earning money so you can buy food.

Furthermore, in reality one can only watch one TV at a time. Also in reality when one needs a TV to stay sane, there's something wrong with him.

Someone's will is not necessarily imposed on others.

Of course it is.

But if you believe the path to happiness is found in imposing on others, I have absolutely no problem with that. Pollute away! Throw trash on my lawn!

So you're also ok with it if someone beats up your children. Beat away! If someone murders your family? Murder away! Or you have no problem with it if sixteen people you have never met came to live in your house! Live away!

The fact is, the lifestyles of many impose on other people's pursuit of happiness.

However, they can't then turn around and suggest they have a right to clean air or clean lawns.

They can't but you might want to.

Whether or not their actions are "criminal" doesn't concern me. Whether or not their actions are consistent with their own values does.

So people can murder, loot, steal, set fires, pollute the whole fucking planet and tax you for all kinds of things

as long as it's consistent with their own values?

That's a rather odd philosophy, man.

farfromglorified · May 2008

Collin wrote:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, that if you took a person's computer away he would die of starvation the very next day. Or he'd burst into flames.

That is what you're saying, when you claim that computers are a requirement for (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/need) survival.

Tell me how most of you would eat without a means to pay for food.

You recognize that eating predates paying, yes? And you recognize that money predates computers, yes? Before our fancy laptops and blackberrys, people both ate and had occupations. And while computers create new occupations and generally lead to great increases in productivity for many occupations, their absence would not end civilization or productive society.

Your job either requires those things or not. Most people do not have jobs that require multiple Tvs and huge mansions. I'm sure you know somebody who does have a job like that :rolleyes:

One of my good friends runs a public access network and "needs" many TVs. And not too long ago on this board, many defended Al Gore's mansion as a requirement for his occupation of statesmanship.

Furthermore, in reality one can only watch one TV at a time. Also in reality when one needs a TV to stay sane, there's something wrong with him.

LOL...that's the rub. In reality, if one needs a computer to keep their job, one is an idiot. See how that works? My needs are perfectly sane and justifiable. Your "needs" are crazy and false.

Of course it is.

You've created a false absolute. My will does not necessarily trump yours. It can, but it doesn't need to.

So you're also ok with it if someone beats up your children. Beat away! If someone murders your family? Murder away! Or you have no problem with it if sixteen people you have never met came to live in your house! Live away!

Absolutely. People have every right to beat up children, murder families, or disregard property rights. Those people, however, demonstrate no adherance to their own rights of safety, life, or property. Find me the thief that doesn't claim to own what he stole. Find me the murderer who doesn't claim a right to life. Those are rare indeed.

The fact is, the lifestyles of many impose on other people's pursuit of happiness.

Sometimes, yes. However, it's far more common that the lifestyles of many simply impose on other people's happiness, not the pursuit. And when someone else's lifestyle imposes on your happiness directly, the problem is typically that you weren't pursuing happiness to begin with -- you were expecting it to be given to you.

So people can murder, loot, steal, set fires, pollute the whole fucking planet and tax you for all kinds of things as long as it's consistent with their own values?

That's a rather odd philosophy, man.

It's not an odd philosophy at all. It's called logic. Certainly people have every right to murder, loot, steal, burn, pollute, and tax. They can do it can't they? Nature granted them that ability. What they cannot do, however, is what nature doesn't allow them to do and that is to live by contradictory principles.

Collin · May 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

That is what you're saying, when you claim that computers are a requirement for (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/need) survival.

You can continue to mock me, I don't care, but that's not what I said.

If you can show me where I said you'd die the very next day if I took your computer away, go ahead (andmy sarcastisc post doesn't count). And please while you're at it, please show me where I said you'd burst into flames.

I can take away someone's food today and he won't starve, I can take that same person's food away the next day and yet he won't starve and I can do it again the next day and again he won't be dead. I guess by your logic one doesn't need food to survive, because needing something to survive obviously means you need it within 24 hours or you'll die or burst into flames.

You recognize that eating predates paying, yes? And you recognize that money predates computers, yes? Before our fancy laptops and blackberrys, people both ate and had occupations. And while computers create new occupations and generally lead to great increases in productivity for many occupations, their absence would not end civilization or productive society.

Ah, yes. So what you're saying is you don't need a computer because people before us didn't need a computer. They used a shovel for their jobs for example. Ah, but they don't need a shovel either because people before them didn't have a fancy shovel. We can go all the way back to the hunter-gatherer society even though I clearly said I was talking about today's society. Not the society of previous generations.

So please answer the question with a realistic answer. How would all the people in the Western world who have a job that requires a computer buy their food if tomorrow all computers disappeared. The fact is there would be a very large number of unemployed. There would be an economic crisis.

Also, please point out where I said that if you took away computers civilization would end.

LOL...that's the rub. In reality, if one needs a computer to keep their job, one is an idiot. See how that works? My needs are perfectly sane and justifiable. Your "needs" are crazy and false.

Actually, if you need a TV to stay sane (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=69764&dict=CALD), you have a problem.

If your job is webmaster you need a computer. Without one you cannot keep your job, because you wouldn't be able to do your job. How does that make one an idiot?

Go to a hundred doctors and tell them you need a tv because you'll go insane without one. They'll all tell you you have a problem, but I'm sure you'll say they are wrong and their claims are false and that's it's perfectly normal that people go insane if they don't have a TV around.

You've created a false absolute. My will does not necessarily trump yours. It can, but it doesn't need to.

I disagree.

Absolutely. People have every right to beat up children, murder families, or disregard property rights. Those people, however, demonstrate no adherance to their own rights of safety, life, or property. Find me the thief that doesn't claim to own what he stole. Find me the murderer who doesn't claim a right to life. Those are rare indeed.

Find me a person who wants clean air, find me a person who wants fresh healthy water, find me a person who wants a healthy planet for their children. Many of them do pollute water, do pollute the air, do fuck up our planet. Those are not rare at all.

Sometimes, yes. However, it's far more common that the lifestyles of many simply impose on other people's happiness, not the pursuit. And when someone else's lifestyle imposes on your happiness directly, the problem is typically that you weren't pursuing happiness to begin with -- you were expecting it to be given to you.

No, sorry I am not expecting it to be given to me.

It's not an odd philosophy at all. It's called logic. Certainly people have every right to murder, loot, steal, burn, pollute, and tax. They can do it can't they? Nature granted them that ability. What they cannot do, however, is what nature doesn't allow them to do and that is to live by contradictory principles.

Actually, farfromglorified, thousands, millions if not billions of people live by contradictory principles every day. I guess nature granted them that ability after all.

we live in a corporate dictatorship

Comments

Categories