Messages

thinking about this from an artistic/creative perspective more than an intellectual one and it does often seem like there is a direct correlation between the originality of a work (or idea) and it's wider palatability ie the more it gratifies you the less it gratifies everyone else.

Im sure we've all run up against those situations in a conversation where your thoughts and those of the other conversationalist veer too close to your own inner processes and end up becoming mutually incomprehensible.

Banned, avatar removed.

yet despite your best efforts I'm back and drunk to boot!

One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.

In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.

not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ

This has proven the most effective method for me so far

the socratic approach!  I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.

you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning

WISA1 IS HERE TO TELL EVERYONE THEY'RE DOIN' IT WRONG.  SO EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION.

actually don't I'm just another drunk asshole who thinks he's right

haha and we're back still awaiting a response to this post

I can't help but feel this discussion is getting a little off topic and as much as I enjoy defending my integrity (and the fighting skills of french farmers) to a band of faceless Discordian avatars would it be ok with you guys if we got back to economics?

I still maintain that the current economic system is deeply flawed.
This assumption is based on my observation of the highly innefficient and volatile distribution of labour and resources.
I beleive this is because we are using an economic system which was formulated on the philosophies of Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes both undoubtedly intelligent men but who happened to lived on an earth which was very very different to the one we live in today.
For those who disagree I would like to know why? That is "Why is the current system not inefficient or volatile?" not "I can't think of a better one"
Admitting there is a problem is the first step towards finding a solution. Looking at an inefficent/immature/outdated process and simply stating 'well I can't think of a better way to do this therefore the current way MUST be the BEST way" is tantamount to a crime against evolution and not a very healthy way of thinking if you believe in the continued survival of the human race.

p.s. If anyone is genuinely interested in my personal life rather than the fine sport of NoobBaiting I'd be more than happy to answer any questions and send you some photos of the farm via email or PM.

One method of teaching something to someone is to let them them persist in their folly until they encounter their error firsthand. Agree with them, take them by the hand and have them skip beside you down the path of their own flawed logic, and smile as that path leads them into the scary forest of error and doubt, and then point out how dark everything is all the sudden, how pointy and menacing the trees look, and whether or not those are eyes watching us from the bushes, all the while smiling. take them further down the path than they've ever thought to go. Then laugh maniacally as they quit the path to go sprinting towards reason.

In practice it's a bit like resorting to reductio ad absurdum, only you don't take it to a ridiculous extreme, jsut to the point where the flaws in their case become unavoidably obvious.

not-the-exact-one-i-wanted-yet-still-relevant link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUXodFgbDfQ

This has proven the most effective method for me so far

the socratic approach!  I did that with my highschool students when i was tutoring, works for maths-related subjects but i never got it to work on anything else. maybe i have issues with applying logic to reality.

you just gotta push a little further, if you can't get their apparently flawed hypothesis to breaking point then maybe it is your own assumptions you should be questioning

ROFL/LOL/mwahahahahaha didn't even read the thread, hilarious!

[objective standard]

Hmmm, not comparing gold to fiat but gold is no longer as stable a standard as it used to be. New techniques are continuously being implemented to mine more gold destabilizing the input of gold into the market and thus the goldprice. Add to that the huge size of the economy (as understood by those who buy and sell currencies for profit¹) being used as leverage against the gold value, allowing changes not related to gold to greatly influence the price of gold. For example: If a company or corporation could boom and/or crash the economy and buy/sell gold in just the right sequence then they could make crazy amounts of money. Of course, the same technique can be used against fiat currencies.
¹ perception is important here

Obviously gold is no longer a valid option and there are at least 15 good reasons why. It's the concept I'm interested in i.e. an objective standard(weight, density... mathematical equation?) surely we can do better than this...
"Fiat money has been defined variously as:
any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1]
state-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[2]
money without intrinsic value.[3][4]"

Meanwhile what happened old uncle roger? The conversation was just starting to get interesting and you disengage like some kind of frightened rodent...

Yep. Ponzi/pyramid. Nothing personal, but your friend is a chump.

And is setting up Stupid Youngin as the next patsy.

That's how these places operate.  "Sell everywhere.  Family, friends, strangers, everywhere."  When you get sucked in, you magically lose all your friends.

Someone here wrote an experience with this sort of thing (V3X?  Rat?  I can't remember who.)  It was awful.

Ah, the CutCo knives gambit. I appreciate the OP's patience and desire for more info, but I think you all have this right on the money.

I sold CutCo knives for awhile, made a couple of grand in the process although I pissed off a few family friends. Eitherway Jet City Hustle is right they are good knives which 10 years later I still use, was it worth it/would I do it again? Probably, but more for what it taught me about 'marketing' than the money I made, pyramid scheme or no learning the mechanics of convincing is a worthy skill as long as you don't get convinced yourself...

"The system was not corrupt, I was corrupt," Conahan said. "I did not perform my duties as I should. I did not have integrity."
haha he's clearly angling for a 5-star cell

[is]

http://blog.blacknews.com/2013/05/judge-mark-ciavarella-sentenced-selling-kids-prison-system101.html#.Up8pDMRdU0O

OK, its just one push back against an unholy tide of shit. But that is something? Right?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned some 4,000 convictions issued by him between 2003 and 2008, claiming he violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles – including the right to legal counsel and the right to intelligently enter a plea. Some of the juveniles he sentenced were as young as 10-years old.

That's one judge, and at least 4000 kids lives ruined. Restitution of $1.2 million.

That's $ 300/ Kid, split equally. I assume the logic here is that is a lot of money to a ten year old so it's appropriate.

Another angle is that this gives an indication of the scale of the horror. Assume 1 judge with similar sentencing attitudes per state. Be generous and assume there's no corruption.

That's a scary number, and that's being totally optimistic.

On the bright side maybe the overturned judgements and the media attention will sufficiently piss off his backers to make the 28 years stint a lot less comfortable than it might have been... Then again probably not.

I still don't understand why increase in scale = inflation I would actually be extremely grateful if you could explain this one for me(no sarcasm intended).

Let's just leave it at people are complicated stupid assholes. This leads to changes in perceived value. This leads to people doing complicated stupid assholish things to money (think of stocks or investing capital but not time and hogging all the results of other people's labor, or some of the more complicated tricks banks pulled that are fucking is over now). The effects of this gets bigger with increased scale. people cheating to make themselves richer lead to inflation, people cheating to make themselves poorer lead to deflation. People are slightly more cunning than stupid so ergo inflation.

That makes sense. So I guess that means we should be looking for a system that's harder to tamper with, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this is the idea behind the gold standard?

Also, you're full of shit.

What country are you from, simple farmboy turned warrior-king? I am from New Zealand which is MADE of farmers and their small unit tactics are limited to convincing dogs to chase sheep and pummeling each other in bar brawls.

Bullshitlandia.

I can't help but feel this discussion is getting a little off topic and as much as I enjoy defending my integrity (and the fighting skills of french farmers) to a band of faceless Discordian avatars would it be ok with you guys if we got back to economics?

I still maintain that the current economic system is deeply flawed.
This assumption is based on my observation of the highly innefficient and volatile distribution of labour and resources.
I beleive this is because we are using an economic system which was formulated on the philosophies of Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes both undoubtedly intelligent men but who happened to lived on an earth which was very very different to the one we live in today.
For those who disagree I would like to know why? That is "Why is the current system not inefficient or volatile?" not "I can't think of a better one"
Admitting there is a problem is the first step towards finding a solution. Looking at an inefficent/immature/outdated process and simply stating 'well I can't think of a better way to do this therefore the current way MUST be the BEST way" is tantamount to a crime against evolution and not a very healthy way of thinking if you believe in the continued survival of the human race.

p.s. If anyone is genuinely interested in my personal life rather than the fine sport of NoobBaiting I'd be more than happy to answer any questions and send you some photos of the farm via email or PM.

Hey now, just because farmers have the skills to take out crows and the occasional coyote with a Winchester, it totally follows that they could work as a team against people who rely on their skill at violence for a living and have almost certainly fought side by side on numerous occasion, and probably have at least semi-decent quality weapons.

I mean, are you seriously suggesting bandits are smarter than crows?  Ridiculous.

no you got it all wrong! bandits are definately smarter than crows but farmers are smarter than bandits

How many acres do you farm?

And how much training do these farmers you know do in small unit tactics?

about a dozen and in all honesty it's a long, long way from perfect, we are barely able to produce 50% of what we consume.
However I am fully aware of "inherent laziness" and feel confident that were I no longer to be blessed with the lifetime efforts of god knows how many third world chumps the 50% could quickly become 200

As for the the real farmers who usually produce around 100000% their small unit tactics (ditto size of armory) is roughly on par if not a little higher than the local police force

A) Because a single currency would be under control of a single organisation. This is VERY BAD. Also known as Totalitarian. OK, under the current system we have 182-ish smaller scale totalitarian currencies, a few pyramid schemes and a few relatively independent currencies. These independent currencies are neccesarily small scale, you would not want to trade internationally with something that is only usable in a few small towns in germany. Any larger and they start to suffer from inflation and such, on account of localized differences in perceived value. (As DOUR already (sort of) said)
Anyway, an increase in scale of a currency leads to three things:
1) Inflation, can be annoying but not usually a big problem.
2) An increase in totalitarian control, not really a problem with the right checks and balances but for everyone's sake: Don't let this one get too bad.
3) Increased viability for international trade, this is something we need to have any level of luxury.
Hmm, my format is wonky but i think i made my points clearly.

A) Unless the 'single organisation' is not subject to human weakness i.e. a well programmed algorithm a la Google search

As previously stated I am "very dumb" and I still don't understand why increase in scale = inflation I would actually be extremely grateful if you could explain this one for me(no sarcasm intended).