Re: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 14:07:27 MDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Davis: "RE: virus: Notice and Proposal of Importance to all Virians"

    Date sent: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:26:26 -0600
    To: virus@lucifer.com
    Subject: Re: virus: Re:Jobs and Human History
    From: "athenonrex" <athenonrex@godisdead.com>
    Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com

    >
    > [joe dees]
    > I submit this post for inclusion in the CoV Bad Analogy Hall of Fame;
    > athe nonex obviously cannot successfully debate the issue
    > straighforwardly, and is thus reduced to profferring off-tangent
    > metaphorical attempts.
    >
    >
    > [athenonrex]
    > you missed the point, yet again. it was an INTENTIONALLY BAD ANALOGY.
    > i find it very hard to think that someone would actually be arguing
    > (seriously arguing, not comedically arguing) the aspects of
    > geographical weather when the subject of ducks' bouyancy was the topic
    > of debate.
    >
    Hokay; can you try an intentionally good one, for a change?
    >
    > similarly, because you reject the simple difference of definition
    > between "job" and "work" (would the terms "employee" and "volunteer"
    > illustrate it better for you?), we are somehow debating the "type" of
    > economy, as opposed to the lack of economy that is possible, given
    > certain trends.
    >
    People can volunteer, that is, work without pay, only if they draw
    survival funds (for little things like food, clothing, shelter, utilities, etc.)
    from other sources, such as a real paying job or inherited money.
    >
    > please note i am not predicting the future. nor do i intend to ever,
    > nor do i hope i ever can. rather, i am looking at certain data,
    > interesting trends in technological development, human evolution
    > (social as well as genetic), and a few other factors. however, you
    > failed to note this and have only succeeded to "shoot down" a straw man
    > by hyping my argument up to something relatively simplistically
    > explained and overexaggerated to the point of absurdity (hey, nothing
    > wrong with the absurd, though...), but my original argument has
    > remained intact.
    >
    > it has remained intact because you refuse to argue to discredit it (or
    > at least a practical aspect of it) within the alloted and (taken as)
    > granted premises.
    >
    > you don't prove that water is wet by lighting a piece of paper on
    > fire, do you? you don't prove that a light bulb works by shutting the
    > power for the entire house off (slightly weaker anology, but i'm
    > working myself up to the stronger ones).you don't prove that WWII
    > happened by starting a WWIII. and lastly, you don't prove that gravity
    > works by floating off into space.
    >
    > why? (to any of the above.) because the attempts at a counter argument
    > do not operate within the context of the premises of the original
    > arguement.
    >
    > and who the fuck knows. you may be able to discredit my arguement
    > whist working within the premises. though i typically have decent
    > "vision" and can shift my perspective rather well, it's not something
    > that can be perfected. i know that somewhere in my arguement (within
    > the premises, i mean) there may be flaws. the reason i post it here is
    > for people (not to collaborate and tell me "good job" ... but thanks
    > anyway hermit...) to pick at my arguement and find stuff wrong with it
    > so i can refine it and make it stronger.
    >
    > but before that happens, if you wish to discredit my arguement, to any
    > degree, you have to attempt a counter arguement within the scope of my
    > premises.
    >
    > [one again, holding my breathe in hopes i don't pass out waiting...]
    > -athenonrex
    >
    You are attempting to sneak in the unlikely conclusion that a
    nonmonetary global economy (now, THERE'S an oxymoron for you!)
    could possibly practicably exist as an accepted premise, and I am
    demonstrating with counterarguments why that unlikely conclusion is
    unacceptable as a premise. For conclusions to be true, not only must
    logical form be followed, but also the premises have to be true, and that
    is what you have not demonstrated, and cannot. If probing the possible
    the consequences pursuant to a moneyless economy is just a 'what if'
    fantasy exercise, fine, but I do not think that such an exercise can
    qualify as an investigation of a feasible future.
    > ----
    > This message was posted by athenonrex to the Virus 2003 board on
    > Church of Virus BBS.
    > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;thread
    > id=28871> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
    > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 20:09:44 MDT