utopian

Hello Tyne, and welcome to philosophy! I am always excited to see women getting into philosophy, and especially happy to see that your child is your first concern. There is a lot of research around here speaking to the problems associated with child abuse, which some experts go so far as to claim is the inherent cause for everything up to world wars. Before I comment further about your struggle, I wish to ask you something; what do you think men can do to get more women into philosophy? It is a common theme for me and other men that we dare not bring up the truth to women, because it does nothing but damage potential relationships. It is a common misfortune that the truth hurts, and women avoid anything that makes them uncomfortable, enabled by men who will do anything to get a woman to have relationships with them. I admire your interest in philosophy, as surely you must have realized, as well as have stated, that sometimes you discover things that are uncomfortable or inconvenient. I understand arguing with a spouse can certainly be stressful. It is probably largely unavoidable, however. Some arguments are bound to happen. I am sure you can largely mitigate the frequency with which they happen, however, through improving communication of course, which, you say, is the problem. What is it you guys argue about? Is it stuff that seems unimportant? Could one or both of you be letting things go? Or perhaps, be more patient about communicating things? Perhaps what is happening is that you are both simply stressed out, and are not finding the right ways to relieve your anger and such, except through argument. Where is the struggle in communication coming from?

Well, if you would read my condensed history of money post; https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44606-a-condensed-history-of-money-and-its-impact-on-today/ Which I suspect you wont because of its length, you might derive that we don't actually have a democracy in America any more, but what we actually have is "the government show" where we still think we have a democracy, secretly controlled in the background by the Federal Reserve. But please, lets not introduce that right now, one thing at a time here. And for the record, I would like to say that, at my heart, I would love to be libertarian. I would absolutely love to be able to go out in the woods somewhere and build myself a house to myself, furnished by the creations of my own education. There is no land, however, that I can simply claim, without being bothered here in America by the Federal government. I have to somehow provide estate tax, and that means I have to play state games. Read my post and you will see I have studied the state long and hard. I am on their side, but only so far as it pleases me. If libertarianism ever outdoes the state and works, be sure to let me know.

That seems applicable in a very dictionary definition of socialism. But so then, what would you call America's educational system for grades 1 through 12, if not socialized? Food stamps? Obamacare? You cannot have a direct control of people in America today under your definition, that would be slavery. But, you can tax the bread maker, buy his bread with the money you taxed, give some poor people some food stamps and have them get the bread. America is still supposedly a democracy, so those taxes are commonly owned by the people, to give them benefits as described. And for clarity, what do you define a utopia as.

MY definition of a utopia, is more like a state of humanity which is as perfect as it can be, before considering the problems inherent to a perfect world. It never fails to amaze me how short sighted libertarian perspectives can be, as is apparent in this quote. As long as there exist laws of physics and other such things, a large part of the universe is indeed determinable. True, individuals have free will. It is hard to determine which choice an individual may choose. But even the choices of individuals are determinable. I used to be a cage fighter, and jiujitsu was my specialty. I knew, when I came to a certain position, what choices my opponent had. I knew if he would make one move I could counter with a certain move, and if he made another move, I could counter with a different move. There were no other choices, except the ones I had already determined. This fact is largely known among jiujitsu practitioners, and extrapolates into everything else in life. The only issue is, an individual having the foresight and/or imagination to be able to make such determinations. Free will is negligible here; you only have so many things you can choose from. But consider something also; my example with the burger machine had nothing to do with a state. It was pure economics. The state had nothing to do with this example. For anyone who cares to study the principles I argued, the inevitability of a utopia becomes as obvious as the inevitability of "what goes up...". Your argument here is simply an unfounded negation. Oh, how horrible it is for soda machines to exist, where I can just walk up, insert a dollar, press a button and get a soda! People hate this so much! Nobody uses these things because of course they are so horrible!" You are missing the fact that, in practice, dispenser machines are quite prevalent and in use, and there is nothing horrible about it. You have some kind of valid point here, although it's not the standing in line that is the problem, as that happens at starbucks and other places too, not just machines. You still seem to be ignoring the fact that hiring people to make coffee is more costly than having robots do it. What is valid here is that people are emotional social beings who like interaction. Now I did say in my burger machine example that you still did need employees to insert materials and take orders, giving customers that interaction. I myself understand this principle, enjoying going down to the local starbucks to flirt with the cute cashier while I get a coffee. Regardless of this, businesses of all kinds are currently looking to maximize profits, and realizing that they can cut a lot of their overhead by replacing employees with machines, ESPECIALLY when minimum wage is going up to 15 dollars an hour in places like the US. No doubt businesses will reduce wages down to one or two pretty faces that bring in customers in order to cut down on overhead costs. Again, let me remind you, none of this has anything to do with the state yet (except maybe the mandating of minimum wage), we are just talking corporations and economics. I argue we are ALREADY seeing an Idiocracy. And yea, I did see that movie. True people want to interact with real people, and true this makes things tricky. Also true is the mechanic of the problem with things like call centers. But again, there is short sightedness here. Technology is ever improving, and we are supposedly going to reach genuine AI some time around 2035. When that happens, all the conveniences of having a real human being will also be available with robots. What is false in this quote, is the idea that it is not the case that we are not already embracing robots. Let me introduce you to Baxter, the manufacturing, assembling robot that is taking all those jobs in America RIGHT NOW; http://www.rethinkrobotics.com/baxter/ Again, I must respectfully bring up a foresight issue here. Burger machines, Baxter robots, 3D printers... we are very much in the process of accepting and improving a robotic workforce, and installing it in our economy. I am not saying humans will be COMPLETELY removed from the workforce... but largely. And with enough time, it could be quite possible. I am not saying that individuals cannot still do the jobs. With burger machines, individuals can still create burgers. The thing is, it will always be at a higher cost, costing more time, or money, or both. It will simply always be much more efficient to let the robot do the work. The individual down the street selling one pizza at 10 dollars an hour every 10 minutes, will always close down in the face of the robot up the street making 10 pizzas for two dollars every 10 minutes. It's simple math. But that is a good thing, you see, because of your other noted principle; that when robots fill in for some work, people are able to concentrate on other work. As robots begin to fill in all the simple work that is available, people will have to go to college to get educated to do the work robots cannot yet do. That takes time however. Sure it is. If one guy makes 10 loaves of bread, and the government taxes some bread and gives it to the poor, that's free stuff, and that's socialism. I think you are speaking to the mechanic of when you take something from the first guy, it makes it not free because that guy worked to make it. But when its a robot making the bread, there is no person that you took the stuff from. Your view of what would happen with a robotic work force seems limited by your imagination. There is a problematic mechanic inherent to the idea of getting all the free stuff you want from a robotic workforce that would "equal hell"; the idea that you don't have to work any more. That you don't have to struggle, that you don't have to make something of yourself. Life becomes pointless without struggle; without the prospect of doing something hard, and being proud of yourself for it. If a robot is doing all the cooking, I become pathetic because I never learn to cook. However, despite the robotic workforce existing, I can still make myself cook something, and be proud of myself for doing it. Still, my achievements will always seem somewhat pointless when A robot could have done something for me in half the time.

Is that what that does? I had no idea.

Survival of the fittest seems invalid only because technological and intellectual advances have made resources relatively abundant for a couple centuries. Our modern politically correct society is built upon this. Much of the world survives only because the strongest, the most intelligent, are capable of providing for the rest of us. Take away the work of the intelligents, take away the resources, and see how valid the philosophy of survival of the fittest truly is. Transgenderism, confederate flags, lion killings... it all becomes painfully unimportant when the illusion of society collapses and you can't find your next loaf of bread. A prominent figure comes to mind, by the name of Genghis Khan. The man would kill men in front of their wives before he had his way with them. Was he a monster? Of course. He still has his genes in 5% of the earth's current population. The validity of survival of the fittest confirmed.

^ someone rep this guy for me plz.

It is socialism because, people get free stuff (or nearly free/very cheap stuff) from a robotic work force. It is utopia because, all of our needs are being met with little or no struggle. Which, actually, produces a philosophical issue, but let's not get into that yet.

The difference I see is the subject matter. You could journal about, say, sporting, political, or local events. Or you could only journal about yourself. The idea is not to write about everything you could find on MSN.com, just whatever is going on in your personal life. Of course journaling publicly could have its negative side effects, but I have seen trolls on this forum be neg repped out of existence, and I must say I am impressed with the general maturity of people here. Certainly a step up from other forums. It would be up to the individual of course to choose what he finds appropriate to share. I have had some experience with journaling, and it it has made apparent to me a fundamental problem; I am simply echoing the thoughts to myself. If I was capable of solving any of these problems on my own, I would have done it. I need more perspective. What better perspective to have, than the perspective of other philosophers? I would of course be happy to share many of my thoughts. I often do on this very forum. I often find myself posting all over different sections, however, and I think it would be hard for anyone to see how my thoughts corroborate and synergize.

Oh heeeell no Shoot I was gonna even make a post on this. Its 12:30 in the morning for me so a short reply will have to suffice for now. Utopia, and socialism, is a technological eventuality. I got plenty of links about this but because it is so late I will have to just do one example. Consider the case of the machine that can produce 360 burgers an hour; http://www.businessinsider.com/momentum-machines-burger-robot-2014-8 With this robot, you only need one employee to order and insert materials into the machine. The machine can then prepare, completely, 360 burgers an hour. Slower, if you have each burger different with specifications. Regardless, the average burger flipper cannot, himself, produce anywhere near 360 burgers an hour. In addition to this, the employee draws a wage, while the machine does not. There is an argument that the machine draws a wage from utilities, but the employee does too. Considering this, we can extrapolate that it is currently much cheaper to have the robot do all the work, and since so many burgers can be produced without a wage being drawn, the burgers will always be cheaper than employee made burgers, who, in addition to materials and tools, require a wage. Now think about that for a second. Do you have any idea how many jobs exist for flipping burgers? Do you know how much of the economy would be gouged out if we replaced all the burger flippers with machines? I mean it is certainly more cost effective to employ machines to do the work, especially when minimum wage in the US is going up to 15 dollars an hour. Who in their right mind is going to choose an employee over a robot at that rate? But then also, you have to think; what are people going to do, if they cant even get a job, flipping burgers?!?! The answer is; nothing! We are all going to be without jobs, and we will just get cheap burgers, because we don't have to include the overhead for paying all those employees! But that is far from the end of it. Cars are now driving themselves. Robots are now manufacturing, and assembling. 3D printers can print pizzas, and HOUSES, and just about everything else. For you to think that utopia is not an eventuality, is for you to say that a robotic workforce is less appealing than a much more costly human workforce.

Today someone told me that to help them get to sleep, the write their thoughts in a journal before they go to bed. It helps them get their thoughts out. This seems like a great idea to me, as I usually have trouble sleeping from all the thoughts in my head. But also, I have thought it might be nice to have a place here among philosophers where I can share my day to day thoughts, just about life, work, philosophy, ideas big and small. There is an app called whisper where people post their thoughts anonymously, and its a constant theme in whisper where people often comment on how therapeutic it seems to be. People seem to get a lot of discussion from strangers online, and this website seems like it could be just as helpful, bouncing our ideas, trials and tribulations off each other. I think it would be especially interesting to see how and what other people think about in their day to day lives. And of course, we could all put our two cents in on any subject that interests us about each other, which, who knows, may or may not be helpful for all of us.

I think this is a great idea. For those of you who don't know Dave Chappelle, Dave is quite possibly one of the best comedians in recent history being offered 50 million dollars for his show, which he refused. Dave often creates comedy from truthful situations which, while very funny, are also thought provoking. I think blending philosophy with comedy is a great way to get more people into it.

My own "quest motivation" comes from the prospect of loot. The person worth going on an adventure for, is myself, for the excitement of the adventure. Have you ever found treasure in real life? In any capacity? It's quite exciting. Sometimes I look for dimes and pennies lying on the ground, because the ones from before 1965 are made of actual silver and copper, and worth much more than today's equivalent denominations. It feels like finding treasure. A long time ago I used to work in a movie theater. People always thought I was weird because I always wanted to clean the movie theaters by myself. I never told them how much money I used to sweep out from under the seats. In game combat is quite exciting, just like real life combat can be, which is why I fought for a while. You dont lose brainpower getting hit in the game however.

Great job diffusing the situation dude. Seems like you stayed very calm. That is what you are supposed to do. Anything else likely would have antagonized the guy into fighting you too. I myself have been in situations where I diffused situations from people with unreasonable hostility. I take care to never antagonize anyone in any way. At first glance people may think this is because I am weak, but to the contrary, I used to be a cage fighter, and jiujitsu was my specialty. I know how to snap someone's neck with my feet. I am more afraid of seriously hurting someone than I am of being hit, as I am quite used to it. The best thing I ever learned was to have the discipline enough to not act like a tough guy and escalate a situation, because that's exactly what gets people more violent. Passive resistance is the way, until you absolutely have to defend yourself.

Ya know, I always suspected something like this, that addiction was not necessarily a chemical issue only, but a philosophical one. I used to do a lot of drugs when I was younger. I was just seeking that high, because life seemed so dull without it. I never got over getting high, I just replaced the high... with violence. I started getting into cage fighting and working out. I replaced the drug high with the runners high. Right now, I am addicted to video games. There is no chemical addiction here, save for, perhaps, an adrenaline rush of winning at combat. What I do feel addicted to, is a philosophical fulfillment I seem to get while playing video games. The sense that I am building a character. That I am going on an adventure. That I am living an exciting life. That is what I feel addicted to. And when I stop playing video games, there just seems to be nothing else in my life. I still work out sometimes, but that can only be done for an hour or so really. I am too disgusted by the general stupidity of people to enjoy being around them. There is simply nothing that can seem to fill the void when video games are not there. I suspect the same is such when people go looking to fill the void when drugs are not there.

Aah, forgive me, I had not read your other posts. I do largely believe that people are largely stuck in their ways, and will not change their opinions until they have really sat down on their own to consider something. Or perhaps, have otherwise been indoctrinated, like children sometimes are in light of things like religion. It is "the matrix" conundrum all over again; if people even had the choice to know they lived in the matrix, would they want to know, or would they just want to be kept in the matrix while malicious entities suck the life out of them? Do people want to know Sandy Hook is an event staged by the government or a corporation in pursuit of their agenda, or do people want to believe America is a great safe place where the government cares about them too much to ever do something like that? Having the conversation on hand for when people do come looking for answers certainly has its value. My issue is, figuring out how to get people to accept the less than convenient truth. People pay for lies so they can be blissfully ignorant. They rarely pay for the hurtful truth. Surely you can see that with Stephan, where his quest to talk about child abuse among other things is met with a constant lack of donations. It would certainly benefit me for the masses to be aware of how they are being messed with. I'm just not sure how to get people aware.

Ya know I just so happen to be given the tragedy of the commons to read in my english class a couple semesters ago, and I remember thinking how much of a problem libertarians would have with this. The teacher just so happen to be very interested in talking about climate change and supporting the Masons. Still, I feel it had its valid points.

I have not really looked at any of the videos or information but, knowing what I know about the banking establishment, I am willing to accept it was a staged event. But so, what do you want to get out of this conversation? Even talking to someone who will accept Sandy Hook as staged, I would not be sure what the goal is here. The average peon is not going to take 5 minutes to look at any evidence suggesting they live anywhere else but candyland, much less one or two hours. Anyone smart enough to bother is probably already in the know. You know what interests me about Adam Lanza is, they made him out to be the stereotypical video game playing shut in. Congratulations media, you have just targeted anyone who would have enough time on their hands, and just so happens to be in the situation where they can research enough evidence to know Sandy Hook was staged. That also just so happens to be the only demographic that would pay enough attention to care about the media's BS. How is the media going to paint its skeptics as killers, when anyone paying attention would feel targeted?

Off topic real quick, what is going on with curly mike and mo lol. On topic, I have always been a supporter of the philosophy that you should be happy being who and what you are, what you were born naturally and have become naturally. If it is causing you problems, only then perhaps should you try and change something. I have always lived a much happier life this way, and it always confounded me how people can so often think they are going to some day be happy trying to be something they are not. Men do not have children. It is man's natural state of life to be physically active, to fight, to gather resources, to provide. To take what he wants. To agress, in pursuit of survival. Now granted that is much more curbed in modern times, but it still certainly has left me feeling more fulfilled to pursue some of these areas in at least general senses. Considering this, I can never quite understand how a woman could think she would be fulfilled not being a housewife mother with kids. At least have that as part of your life some time. If you want to be a businesswoman or something, fine, go for it, but have your children experience and wait until they are grown up and gone to do it. If I was a woman, I would certainly think I would regret not having kids, husband and family. This modern general unhappiness of women does not surprise me at all.

Economic Left/Right: -3.5 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46 Apparently I am not so far from Ghandi.

Lets have a thought experiment. With monkeys. Angry monkeys. There are five monkeys. The smart monkey, the big monkey, and three common monkeys. The smart monkey, being smart, easily tempts the other four monkeys into taking on debts for whatever they want. The smart monkey now gets the other monkeys to do whatever work he wants, as the other monkeys must work to pay off their debt. Any time a monkey gets close to paying off its debt, the smart monkey finds a way to manipulate money to get that monkey further into debt. Now it often happens, that one of the monkeys wants to try and stop paying his debts. That's ok, because the smart monkey just hires the big monkey to go collect the debt. The big monkey, being the biggest, can fight any one monkey and win. And actually, the big monkey can fight two monkeys at the same time, and beat them both. But the big monkey cannot fight three monkeys and win. This is a fairly simple problem, however; all the smart monkey needs to do, if he ever needs to collect on the debt of three monkeys, is distract one monkey, while the big monkey handles the other two monkeys. The smart monkey does not even need to fight, just distract one monkey long enough for the big monkey to beat up the other two monkeys, then come deal with the distracted monkey. Distracting a common monkey is fairly easy for a smarter monkey. But what if the big monkey decides he no longer wants to pay his debt? Well, there's a solution for that as well, though it is a little harder. The smart monkey has to organize the three common monkeys long enough to gang up on the big monkey, in order to collect on his debt. Remember, the big monkey can take one monkey, and even two, but not three, and certainly not with a smart monkey distracting him. It certainly is a pain to organize the three monkeys, who love to be obnoxious unorganized trolls, but eventually the smart monkey can always get that big monkey to pay his debts. There is only one way for the non-smart monkeys to ever escape the perpetual debt slavery of the smart monkey; all at the same time, the three common monkeys and the big monkeys must join together in unison, and tell the smart monkey to destroy all records of any debts. Unfortunately, this is the most unlikely of all scenarios, because the four monkeys must all, simultaneously, overcome the guilt of debt, overcome the distractions of the smart monkey, and organize long enough to get the smart monkey to do what they want. Unfortunately, the smart monkey, being smart, knows he can always prevent this by always keeping the other monkeys distracted, with television, and video games, and drugs both legal and illegal, and more. And so the four monkeys are forever enslaved to the fifth smart monkey. Can you see how this translates into real life? The big monkey is America, with it's military industrial complex. The smart monkey is the international monetary funds. The three common monkeys are the countries of the rest of the world. And we are all just a bunch of angry monkeys, angry about all the debts we will never be rid of, as long as some of us monkeys are smarter than the rest.

Education is indeed a large problem here. How money works should be one of the first things children learn in school. It's kinda important to know someone manipulating a money supply can enslave you without your knowing it. Of course, the school system is designed for you to not really learn this, or anything else that will allow you to profit for yourself. We can't have a bunch of young people figuring out what's going on, only people trained well in being slaves. And so, how can I damn people to the slavery of the system, when it's not their fault the world they were born into was designed to keep them stupid? And yet, aren't people free enough to learn about these things on their own accord? After all, I did. There is certainly a failure, or a direct intent of the older generations to not teach their children how to fend for themselves. I just constantly find myself baffled at how willing people seem to be to stay like that.

I once read an article from a femnazi who wanted to cut off all men's dicks and freeze them to continue humanity, keeping the enuchs as slaves. Anyone who disagreed was to be sent to therapy. Yea, feminism has long since gone off it's rocker, and the internet is thankfully widely recognizing it.

I recently found another interesting source to answer your question; Ron Paul acurately predicted the housing crisis in the early 2000s. He had been campaigning to solve America's money problem for a while. He clearly states in the provided recording, that other congressmen still foolishly believe the dollar is backed by gold. I am telling you, our government officials suffer from exponential idiocy. He also says congressmen have told him, the congressmen believe the average person is too stupid to figure out what's going on with money, which, really, I agree with. My internal struggle is, should people die because of their stupidity.

First, I would appreciate if you would refrain from responding to MMX. He has his inconceivably negative reputation for a reason, and he is only posting here to troll you and me. Second, what do you consider a unicorn? While I certainly do seek the virtuous woman who is respectful, non-hypocritical and has many other values, I appreciate a woman who understands herself well enough to know she naturally desires a healthy sexual appetite. My life philosophy seeks fulfillment, and that certainly includes the enjoyment of sex. Too many women these days are too prude to admit to themselves or others they also seek this fulfillment. I get the feeling you believe a virtuous woman would refrain from sexual activity. That is indeed logical, but when have women ever been renown for knowing what they want and being in a relationship with who they say they think they want? Indeed, some of my best game involves the most counter-intuitive mechanics. Often, I seek to irritate women. Many people would never think in their wildest dreams, that this would make a woman more likely to sleep with you. Although I must say, I see an argument here for my demeanor possibly repelling a virtuous woman, although it is the most fulfilling. At this point in my life, I feel more comfortable not having missed out, than having chased the unicorn I might never have caught.