Re: ZeitGeist Moving Forward
You’re obviously emotionally, vapid and loosely organized critique of my quotes is marked by several things:
a. Intellectual dishonesty; Throughout, you attack the quotes as “incorrect” or “misunderstood” in a vain attempt at defending your precious ideology.
b. Your attempt to vet “expert opinion” as “fact” is likewise intellectually dishonest, and is the bedrock that forms your entire ethos. I feel sorry for you.
c.You, like many believers in fringe solutions, are resorting to inflammatory, illogical and inconsistent attacks that vary in range and pitch in order to “challenge” dissenting opinions in a way that’s superficially direct and inquisitive, but is subtly threatening and an attempt at compromising character.
Best advice – just go “add it to your blog”, so your cronies can agree with you, call me an idiot, and you can all have a field day with your “facts”.
WHEN BAD DATA IS PRESENTED IT IS NOT INCUMBENT ON THE REVIEWER TO PROVIDE IT FOR THE PRESENTER OF THE THESIS. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU AND ZEITGEIST TO PRESENT REAL, FACTUAL DATA THAT YOUR COLLECTIVIST DREAM IS REALISTIC.
You’ll continue to provide loose-leaf, opinion or expert opinion asserting that “studies have show” that what you want to be correct is correct.
This is not a causual relationship. This is not fact. Your opinions, and calling into question the validity of my opinions are not “fact”, and again, in the course of academic discussion, it is not my responsibility to do your research for you.
Science is a convenient slave and a cruel master for followers of TZM – it’s used to “validate” your “expert” opinions, but is ignored as a processing tool with which we can evaluate the pliability of your notions. It’s clearly the second portion that is misunderstood.
Insofar as issues of your lack of knowledge, such as Progressivism, I suggest you take your own advice, and just stop “shooting off your mouth”. That said, here are some of your more ridiculous assertions and quotes:
Your link makes no references to any massive warfare on the part of these people.
Did you read it? Where the hell do you think they got the slaves?
Perhaps they “volunteered” like folks will with Zeitgeist.
The entire issue of genetics being a basis for behavior was debunked in the first part of the film. Not sure how you missed that. By people far more qualified then you or I.
I made no mention of genetics, simply that Darwinian biological principle (and its application to society, however controversial) makes far more sense than Zeitgeist.
Possessive instincts are a reaction to scarcity and the possibility of lack of access. They are not automatic. Abundance of access eliminates this behavior. Human nature is bullshit. As was demonstrated and explained by the Stanford Professor, along with several other experts in their fields provided in part one.
Way to “prove me wrong”. “the Stanford Professor” offered opinion.
It is my opinion that you will never be able to produce harmony because possessive instincts are inborn, at least to some degree.
As for qualified, I’ll defer to my man Colin Powell who said:
“Don’t be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. … Don’t be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard.”
I find this statement particularly well adjusted to you and TZM in general.
“The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family.”
I can dig similar quotes out of my Political Ideologies texts.
This is exactly what you’re advocating.
In addition, I find myself particularly annoyed with your condescending tone as you continually “Reaveal” the truth, “Demolish” my argument, criticise my “diatribe” and correct me for “shooting off my mouth without any understanding” about what I say.
VTV – you’re on the internet.
There are a lot of “tough guys” on the internet.
I wouldn’t put up with this sort of bullshit in person, and I won’t put up with it here either.
If you’ll notice, out of the thousands of members here – only about 9 have contributed to this.
Zeitgeist is a sham, and most folks have the brains to see that.
The L. Ron Hubbard-esque attacks on other peoples’ sanity, sensibility and depth of rationale are all earmarks of a dogmatic, hostile ethos that cannot defend its irrationality by way of rhetoric. Typically, if history teaches us anything, they do it with populism and violence, which are natural parts of human experience.
That urge you’re getting to call me insane – that’s all you.
When you feel like you just can explain yourself to “irrational” people, resist the impulse to think they’re the stupid ones. You possess no intellectual primacy here, and you’re frustrated because your inability to adequately regurgitate the information espoused by your beloved Peter Joseph is leaving people feeling lack-luster and un-inspired. It’s not you – don’t take it so hard – it’s the entire concept of Zeitgeist.
Oh, and hey fella, I won’t do your research for you, but you can start here: