Skeptic Project

I've had enough of your half ass'd knowledge.

"uh yea my proof is where I work lala"

Compares well with a graduate psychology class.

Muertos, I read the article. It was a very complete dissection of common arguments made by supports of TZM. I have many comments to make, but I've already spent enough time here today and have to get back to work. I'll be back.

I'm looking forward to these comments.

In the meantime, can you point me at some links to detailed criticism of Zeitgeist Addendum? Your article mentioned that the points mentioned in movies like Addendum are easily refuted. I haven't seen such a detailed breakdown of what's wrong with Addendum.

The conspiracy arguments Merola makes in Z2 are pretty much the same as the first movie. Only thing that's substantively different is the addition of the Venus Project as the supposed "cure" for conspiracy theories. There isn't much more there, but Edward has done a pretty detailed discussion of Zeitgeist Addendum:

http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/

Did you take issue with:

1) Me not acknowledging the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths.
2) Me claiming that sociopaths cannot be rehabilitated.

Because if the answer is number 1, that's not what I was talking about. That wasn't what I disagreed with, only that sociopaths can be rehabilitated.

I think you might have misunderstood me and raged, or I explained myself poorly. One or the other is probable.

Why would CBT rehabilitate a sociopath?

CBT does not create anything, it only teaches you how to use tools you already possess.

If you got pissed because I didn't acknowledge there's a difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, I'll go ahead and flat out state that I understand there's a difference and that wasn't what I was trying to say.

"It depends on what caused the sociopathic tendencies and at what time in their growth."

But lack of conscience is not due to learned behavior. It is a neurological defect.

1988 is pretty dated man.

I honestly don't know what context you are asking that in. Are we talking clinical or what?

If you know the answer, by all means give it.

I don't really need to imagine anything man. As far as I know there is no successful rehabilitation for sociopaths. What information do you have that says otherwise? That's the only thing I have disputed in this exchange.

"Neurological defects, as far as I know, are not caused by the environment. Loss of conscience via this manner would be an indicator of psychopathy, not sociopathy."

I think I know why they just got rid of those terms and decided to use antisocial personality disorder. So nerds wouldn't fight with each other for no reason on the Internet.

"As for as methods used to rehabilitate, I'm trying to find an article I can actually read."

Honestly, as far as I know there isn't a successful method that can be replicated. I would be very, very surprised if you find some.

Fair point and I agree.

Aaron and I cyb0red and made up.

Just a passionate issue.

I guess I'll be the one to respond to bkyle in full...

Why do we need to change our ways and perform a massive switch to a world-encompassing system like The Venus Project? I hear this question a lot. Many people are comfortable in their ways and don't see a need.

Here are some moral arguments why we "should" change…

(1) We have the medicine so that no one has to die from preventable diseases.
(2) We have the capability to produce food in such abundance that no one on the planet should be hungry.
(3) We have the technology to give every person on the planet clean drinking water.
(4) We have the technology so that no one should have to work in dangerous conditions.
(5) We have the resources to provide a sturdy home for every person on the planet so no one has to sleep on the street or die from extreme weather (including hurricanes, tornados, floods, etc).
(6) We have the understanding to fix social problems so that instead of throwing people in jail and forgetting about them for committing crimes, we can fix the deplorable conditions many people live in that negatively shape their lives leading them to commit these crimes.

Mostly agreed. However, again, the solution you propose absolutely depends on tabula rasa being true, which it is not, so an RBE will fail miserably if implemented.

What people really need to hear is why we "MUST" change…

(i) Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction
As long as we have scarcity, greed, and inequality, there will always be war and terrorist acts. Our weapons have such destructive capacity that we're always a switch away from vaporizing cities and leaving that land and the surrounding area unusable for generations. This threat may not get the headlines it used to, but it should be one of the planet's greatest worries. Now that humanity has opened the box and learned how to make these weapons, there's no going back. The threat will always be there. The only was to diffuse it is to remove the motivation: Equality for all and abundance for everyone's needs.

Sure, but again, solution is unrealistic. You can't achieve equality for all and abundance with an RBE because it would fall apart rather quickly.

(ii) Resource Depletion
Humanity has been lucky to live on such a plentiful planet. For thousands of years we've been taking resources with very little thought about the sustainability of those resources. The problem is our advancing technology is allowing us to harvest and use those resources at an exponential rate. For example, 25% of all oil mined ever on the planet has been consumed in the last 10 years. The Amazon Rainforest, where a lot of the air we breath comes from, is being deforested at a rate of 8 NFL football fields a day. We need resources, but we need to switch to focussing on renewable and sustainable resources. Humanity has never faced the complete depletion of a resource we truly require. With our exponential resource consumption, that new experience is inevitably going to happen, and it won't be far off.

(iii) Air Pollution, Water Pollution
Basic necessities of life. We need air to breath and water to drink. We're filling our air with pollution like never before. There's a good chance we don't even understand the repercussions of our polluting ways. For example, where does our drinking water come from? Rain and snow that falls from the sky. Yes, that same sky we're filling daily with our pollution. Yes, that's the same water the plants we eat get the water they need from. Yes, those are the same plants that are eaten by animals that we eat.
This is all on top of the destruction of our salt-water oceans by chemicals, plastics, and the decimation of sea life from irresponsibly large corporation fishing.

(iv) Landfills, Incineration, and The Lack of Recycling
Our reckless consumption is leading to reckless waste. It's reckless because very little thought is given to what happens to all the waste we produce. Think of all the one-time-use we use on a daily basis: coffee cups, plastic forks, yogurt containers, styrene (styrofoam) containers, etc. It all goes in the garbage without a thought as to where the garbage goes. First, we're going to run out of the resources that we're currently using to make all this stuff. Second, we're filling up our landfills with all this stuff, much of which does not biodegrade and will sit in the dump for 500 years. Meanwhile, chemicals from that garbage slowly seep the land. To combat our overflowing landfills, we should be working on intelligent re-use and re-cycling. Instead, we're moving to incinerators. Now we're burning our garbage and sending this chemicals up into the air we breath (see above), which turns into the water we use (again, see above).
Watch this video, called "The Story of Stuff":
http://www.storyofstuff.com/</p>

Seen it. I wouldn't be so quick to believe it, though, since many of the facts presented have been heavily disputed.

(v) Greenhouse Gases, Glaciers and the Arctic Melting, Widening Deserts and everything else related to Global Warming/Climate Change.
Care to debate whether anything should be done about global warming? Start by watching these two shorts videos, aptly titled "The Most Terrifying Videos You'll Ever See" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=channel /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY&feature=channel

Yes, global climate change is real, and the environmental damage you listed above is also real. I think everyone here believes that. However, again, your solution still fails, and you still have to show why the current system wouldn't be able to handle these problems itself.

(vi) Technological Unemployment
Technology is advancing exponentially. Each new discovery/invention is used to make more discoveries/inventions. Humanity is getting really good at this now that information is shared globally in virtually "no time" like never before. These new advancements are being used by corporations to put people out of work. Look around at where you live and you likely already see it: automated manufacturing, bank machines, self-checkout, automated telephone systems, automatic latte machines, etc. These all used to be jobs for many people. What are those people doing for work now? Corporations are always going to be looking to be more efficient and profitable. Replacing humans with machines is the solution corporations are looking for. And they must, because if they don't automate, then the competition will, and their marketshare and profits will suffer. Now think through this problem of increasing unemployment. Unemployed people don't have money to make purchases from corporations. Corporations have to make layoffs. As unemployment increases, the economy suffers and more people become unemployed. See the cyclical feedback loop? Once unemployment levels reach a "tipping point" and the cycle feeds on itself, how does it stop? No one's means of making a living is safe.

I've had this argument on the ZM forums already. My argument is that technology increases efficiency which means more can be done with less, which means yes, less workers are required for the same job, but it also means the end product or service is cheaper. Also, new technology allows for new industries to arise, thereby creating jobs. Example: the invention of the internet may be bankrupting newspapers, but it also allowed web-based businesses like YouTube, Google, and Amazon to arise. In other words, it's not unemployment so much as a shift in demand away from labor and towards technology jobs. And this will continue until we achieve human-level AI, at which point we'll have bigger things to worry about.

Nanos said:

> TZM cannot do anything about psychopaths and is thus fucked.

Prisons will do nicely..

Are you being sarcastic?

I get partily as well

its been quite interesting reading your forum. i found it while looking for a balanced view on tzm and there are undoubtedly some good points being made by debunkers as well as believers. i agree with your take on 9/11 and will, now, in order to get to my point more swiftly, distance myself from this section of the films. i also found it regrettable that the section on religion felt the need to, for example, falsify the birth date of horace, as well as other blatant outlandish claims. speaking as someone raised a catholic in scotland, my view of the church and its abuse of power was reached in my early teens around the time i heard the hicks sketch - dinosaur fossils - god put them there to test our faith!

anyway, onwards to my point. i read your critique of the second film and i agree they appear to either miss, or i might suggest, choose not to face head on, that it is indeed capitalism that is the cause of suffering. for some reason i feel that the mere mention of anti-capitalist notions are treated with fear by americans most notably, almost as though they are committing high treason. i'm not claiming anti-capitalism is rife in europe, it's not, merely a different sentiment towards the power holders.

i must now leave my post though i will be back in the morning. it's almost 2am and i'm shattered. my final point is that marx was very clear that all nations would need to be divorced from capitalism before mankind could be truly free. russia, china, and cuba became dictatorships in spite of, and because of, the ugly head of the capitalist beast.

sorry, is marks a bad word here?

i will eagerly answer any comments tomorrow.

This forum is full of technocrats, anarchists, libertarians (US-style), and likely Marxists as well.