From: Rafael Anschau (anschau.ez@terra.com.br)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 19:30:51 MDT
Athenorex argument seems to be drawn from the premise that men would not
be selfish anymore, if he just had some "conditioning". (This is what I
perceive from volunteering economy). That's obviously a false
premise(Dawkins, The Selfish Gene) and any argument from here would therefore be false.
Unfortunately.
[]'s
Rafael
> 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>
-- Rafael Anschau <anschau.ez@terra.com.br> --- 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 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 15:22:22 MDT