We Really Don't Have To Do This Anymore...

Valmont

Wurly wrote: »

Anyways, no matter what I say, someone nit picks at it. So i'm outta here.

If you don't like people 'nitpicking' on a discussion forum then maybe twitter would be more up your alley?

Wurly

Wurly wrote: »

No doubt this post will be picked apart as well.

Valmont wrote: »

If you don't like people 'nitpicking' on a discussion forum then maybe twitter would be more up your alley?

I rest my case.

Jester252

Wurly wrote: »

Yeah, you know what? I'm over it.

Thanks to everyone for the PM's. I appreciate your time, your suggestions and support.

To be honest, this has been a huge wake up call for me. I thought everyone wanted to save the planet. I thought everyone was sick of governments taking the p1ss. How wrong I was. It seems the mere notion of questioning it causes people to go on a witch hunt.

I don't get it. I don't get the hostility, the ignorance and the incessant need to just fight about nothing to make yourselves look intelligent. You are already intelligent. You don't have to be rude to make your point.

Anyways, no matter what I say, someone nit picks at it. So i'm outta here. I feel like I can't have a proper conversation with most here without it turning nasty. No doubt this post will be picked apart as well. It's just so boring and nonsensical to me.

So, thanks for your contributions everyone. I will continue to be conscientious as much as possible in my own life.

So your have given up because not everyone wanted to follow your ideal sociality of hypocrisy.

I am pie

The ignorant arrogance of Brand is breathtaking. I suggest he comes to South America and explains to brazilian and colombian coffee producers, argentine soy producer, uruguayan beef producers that they can no longer create crops for export and have to sell everything locally. Once they agree, find themselves and million of their dependent workers in abject poverty and without any adequate government structures in place to help them beyond his woolly spritualism I imagine they will all be queuing up to buy into his blythe statements about spiritual enlightment.

All African exporters will be delighted to know they aren't to have any income from export and China will delighted to know that they are to return to a subsistence based lifestyle of poverty and hardship.

Notable that is not practical for this privileged new age merchant of vague spiritualism to reliniquish his own personal fortune until such times as the world has agreed with him about the need to return to barter and subsistence farming.

I am only surprised he hasn't taken one step further and insisted that we do away with division of labour and return to the days before farming and settled communities.

His claim to have seen the light for the world because he managed to overcome his own personal addictions reveals a messiah complex of breathtaking scale.

An entertaining comedian, a horrible political philosopher.

Wurly

Jester252 wrote: »

So your have given up because not everyone wanted to follow your ideal sociality of hypocrisy.

No i'm just sick of people just interested in arguing. I am only interested in change.

Now i'm not going to stay involved in something where people are only interested in arguing and not contributing. So i'm going to leave it there.

You can think what you like as far as i'm concerned. That's entirely your prerogative.

This just doesn't feel like a constructive environment to have this discussion anymore so i'm taking myself away from it, as is my prerogative.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wurly wrote: »

I rest my case.

But that has been the problem since the OP. There was no case. Just feigned interest in a discussion followed by dismissal of anything not to your liking. A hodgepodge of issues thrown out there with no joined up thinking in the questioning. Any divergence from a "revolutionary" stance was met with a condescending comment that you wanted to change things for our good - even if we don't want it changed - because we don't seem to understand how wrong our view of life is.

Perhaps a single issue discussion might have been more productive. But then again that wouldn't really suit After Hours.
Case rested and the jury is hung. I declare a mistrial.

I am pie

OP: - I am interested in change, but not opinions or discussion.

Democracy evidently not your cup of tea.

Wurly

Jaelyn Tangy Newsstand wrote: »

But that has been the problem since the OP. There was no case. Just feigned interest in a discussion followed by dismissal of anything not to your liking. A hodgepodge of issues throw out there with no joined up thinking in the questioning. Any divergence from a "revolutionary" stance was met with a condescending comment that you wanted to change things for our good - even if we don't want it changed - because we don't seem to understand how wrong our view of life is.

Perhaps a single issue discussion might have been more productive. But then again that wouldn't really suit After Hours.
Case rested and the jury is hung. I declare a mistrial.

Well i'm sorry, if we don't have a planet to live on, then we're all f*cked!!

The fact that the planet is in real trouble is a fact - whether you want to look at climate change or just pollution in general. That's why I said I wanted change for everyone. Because everyone lives on the planet.

I asked for ideas to work on that non-disputable fact. Instead, every single point I made was ripped apart. I'm not p!ssing on anyone's beliefs. But to the most argumentative on this thread, I have not seen one idea brought forward to stop the destruction of our planet.

I said from the very beginning that I Don't Have All The Answers!!!!!!! I was asking for a brainstorm of sorts. Not trying to make myself out to be anything but looking for solutions.

So, instead, people decided to fight with me. One person even questioned the validity of my father's illness. Am I expected to stay around for that crap? What the f*ck is that gonna solve? This is not the reason I started the thread - for lots of petty arguing. But it's pretty clear that that's the way it's headed. So i'm done.

My point was that the people controlling us are making bad decisions and shouldn't we do something? Who actually agrees with a lot of the things happening as listed in my OP?

So yes, lots of small issues that come under the umbrella of one big issue - the people making our decisions!!!!!

But whatever. I'm wasting my time even explaining myself at this stage.

looking_around

Wurly wrote: »

Well i'm sorry, if we don't have a planet to live on, then we're all f*cked!!

The fact that the planet is in real trouble is a fact - whether you want to look at climate change or just pollution in general. That's why I said I wanted change for everyone. Because everyone lives on the planet.

I asked for ideas to work on that non-disputable fact. Instead, every single point I made was ripped apart. I'm not p!ssing on anyone's beliefs. But to the most argumentative on this thread, I have not seen one idea brought forward to stop the destruction of our planet. Instead, people decided to fight with me. What the f*ck is that gonna solve? This is not the reason I started the thread. But it's pretty clear that that's the way it's headed. So i'm done.

My point was that the people controlling us are making bad decisions and shouldn't we do something? Who actually agrees a lot of the things happening in my OP?

So yes, lots of small issues that come under the umbrella of one big issue - the people making our decisions!!!!!

But whatever. I'm wasting my time even explaining myself at this stage.

Not a regular of after hours, I see.

If you can't hold on to your points, or explain them, they weren't strong points in the first place.

Also,..you come to after hours to push for "change". I asked before, what are YOU doing for the planet?

Wurly

looking_around wrote: »

Not a regular of after hours, I see.

If you can't hold on to your points, or explain them, they weren't strong points in the first place.

Also,..you come to after hours to push for "change". I asked before, what are YOU doing for the planet?

I've answered your question already. Please don't make out like I haven't.

Again - just trying to cause arguments than contributing with ideas of your own.

Anyways, this is well and truly my last post on this thread. So, best of luck.

DiegoCosta

Wurly wrote: »

No i'm just sick of people just interested in arguing. I am only interested in change.

Now i'm not going to stay involved in something where people are only interested in arguing and not contributing. So i'm going to leave it there.

You can think what you like as far as i'm concerned. That's entirely your prerogative.

This just doesn't feel like a constructive environment to have this discussion anymore so i'm taking myself away from it, as is my prerogative.

We'd all love change, I'd love to be a billionaire.

Do you have any constructive comments on what can be done to achieve the "change that you are after.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Wurly wrote: »

Well i'm sorry, if we don't have a planet to live on, then we're all f*cked!!

The fact that the planet is in real trouble is a fact - whether you want to look at climate change or just pollution in general. That's why I said I wanted change for everyone. Because everyone lives on the planet.

I asked for ideas to work on that non-disputable fact. Instead, every single point I made was ripped apart. I'm not p!ssing on anyone's beliefs. But to the most argumentative on this thread, I have not seen one idea brought forward to stop the destruction of our planet. Instead, people decided to fight with me. What the f*ck is that gonna solve? This is not the reason I started the thread. But it's pretty clear that that's the way it's headed. So i'm done.

My point was that the people controlling us are making bad decisions and shouldn't we do something? Who actually agrees a lot of the things happening in my OP?

So yes, lots of small issues that come under the umbrella of one big issue - the people making our decisions!!!!!

But whatever. I'm wasting my time even explaining myself at this stage.

Don't you fret. We will have a planet to live on for quite some time yet. Blaming every woe of the planet on government was the weakness from the start. So was feigning the want of a discussion, then countering any contrary opinions to your own but adding a coy "but I don't know the answers...I just want to discuss it". Your own agenda was clear and you cannot seriously think a planet can ever be run by consensus and at the same time benefit all people. As an employer, if nothing else, even you should know this will not happen with any group of more than about 10 like minded people and certainly not for an entire country, let alone a planet.

Anyway, who am I replying to, as you are done with it? Edit: although editing what I quoted from.

Last_Minute

I have watched most of Russell Brands Trews videos, to be honest i think the guy is a genius for the most part.

He also craves attention. It seems like by getting clean and sober he has replaced his addiction with attention seeking. Not a bad trade of to be fair.

looking_around

Wurly wrote: »

I've answered your question already. Please don't make out like I haven't.

Again - just trying to cause arguments than contributing with ideas of your own.

Anyways, this is well and truly my last post on this thread. So, best of luck.

You actually haven't told me what you are doing for the planet.

and tbf, there are better forums for this than after hours............

One eyed Jack

Wurly wrote: »

No i'm just sick of people just interested in arguing. I am only interested in change.

Now i'm not going to stay involved in something where people are only interested in arguing and not contributing. So i'm going to leave it there.

You can think what you like as far as i'm concerned. That's entirely your prerogative.

This just doesn't feel like a constructive environment to have this discussion anymore so i'm taking myself away from it, as is my prerogative.

Wurly I like your ideas at a local level. I think you've got some great ideas. But when you try to go National and Global, you just lose me, and you'll lose most people.

You're biting off more than you can chew. You talk about dealing with problems at local level and each of us spreading love, joy and peace to each other, and then you talk about half the world is starving and the planet is dying and the world is full of misery but let's have fun.

People's hostility isn't borne of fear or misunderstanding, it's borne of confusion, confusion created by your lack of focus and your very poor grasp of economics, politics and anthropology. You're right, you didn't claim to have all the answers, but to have none? To base your arguments off emotion and ill informed misunderstanding and claim that everyone else is ignorant and fearful and kept that way by some powerful 'elite'...

You want to topple the elite, well you go right ahead and do that. Meanwhile I'll be here minding my own business waiting for you to get back.

What? You've given up trying to change the world already because some people were mean to you?

That's why Russell Brand is where he is, and you are where you are. You don't need 'people power', you just need a good gag, He's got the dapper rogue routine down to a tee. He would have been rejected hundreds of times, well used to rejection. Your ideas about world change get rejected by a mere handful, and you've already decided to give up.

Well you're certainly not going to change the world or save the planet with that attitude.

Jester252

Wurly wrote: »

No i'm just sick of people just interested in arguing. I am only interested in change.

Now i'm not going to stay involved in something where people are only interested in arguing and not contributing. So i'm going to leave it there.

You can think what you like as far as i'm concerned. That's entirely your prerogative.

This just doesn't feel like a constructive environment to have this discussion anymore so i'm taking myself away from it, as is my prerogative.

You're only interested in your idea of change. Plenty of people have contributed and pointed out the flaws with your argument.

You are the one not wanting a discussions on the matter. You just want people to blindly follow your ideals and now that you've being challenged you only response is dismiss these challenges instead of engaging with them.

The only reason that this isn't a constructive environment is because you don't want it to be.

bnt

I would disagree with the OP's idea that the world is being "run", as if everything that's gone wrong is being imposed from above - what we would call a "top-down" structure. If I look at the history of economics - of money, banks, government finances, and so on - I get a strong sense of people making it up as they went along, systems evolving to meet needs (real or imagined) - what we call "bottom-up" organisation.

There has been some "top-down" structuring, such as the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), when (mostly) men in smoke-filled rooms decided how international finance would be regulated. This led to the founding of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a major thorn in the side of anti-Capitalists. But this was an attempt to fix problems in the existing system, which was not planned.

There are common themes of corruption, greed and avarice that transcend individual economies and institutions - but that is not to be confused with a conspiracy. Remember the LIBOR scandal from a few years ago? That was small-scale collusion that had huge consequences, which the perpetrators were too short-sighted to spot: they did it for short-term gain.

As the old saying goes: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. :pac:

KomradeBishop

Jester252 wrote: »

So your have given up because not everyone wanted to follow your ideal sociality of hypocrisy.

Even if the OP was hypocritical - which the OP isn't - harping on only about that adds nothing to the debate, and is actually an Ad-Hominem attack, which does nothing to counter the OP's views.

Ad-Hominem can sometimes add to a debate - in pointing out real biases which affect the credibility of sources/research and such - but here it's just a weak excuse for unnecessary nastiness/condescension, which prevents an actual worthwhile discussion from taking place.

Nearly all instances of hypocrisy that people try to point out here as well, are invalid, where participation in the 'hypocrisy' automatically occurs just by being practically unable to avoid participating in the current economic system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

renegademaster

bnt wrote: »

Remember the LIBOR scandal from a few years ago? That was small-scale collusion that had huge consequences, which the perpetrators were too short-sighted to spot: they did it for short-term gain.

As the old saying goes: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. :pac:

you really believe they didn't know exactly what they were doing? come on now

Jester252

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Even if the OP was hypocritical - which the OP isn't - harping on only about that adds nothing to the debate, and is actually an Ad-Hominem attack, which does nothing to counter the OP's views.

Ad-Hominem can sometimes add to a debate - in pointing out real biases which affect the credibility of sources/research and such - but here it's just a weak excuse for unnecessary nastiness/condescension, which prevents an actual worthwhile discussion from taking place.

Nearly all instances of hypocrisy that people try to point out here as well, are invalid, where participation in the 'hypocrisy' automatically occurs just by being practically unable to avoid participating in the current economic system.

I suggest you re-read the op.

How can you get rid of a nanny state and still want climate control?
How can you get rid of a nanny state and have distribution of wealth?
How can you get rid of a nanny state and prevent extinction?
How can you get rid of a nanny state and control food consumption?
How can you get rid of a nanny state and control what we consume?
How can you get rid of a nanny state and control the media?

KomradeBishop

Pretty obvious that 'nanny state' is a subjective term - opposing 'nanny state' policies, doesn't make someone a full-on Libertarian, opposed to any/all government action/intervention...

Rather pointless taking your (rather extreme black/white) definition of 'nanny state', and then applying that to the OP.

coffee_cake

How else would you achieve anything by general consensus except by arguing out the fine points? Otherwise it's just a dictatorship or hive mind/
It's difficult to do that when someone doesn't want to discuss it and gives up because they think everyone's being mean. Or accusing people with differing opinions of being ignorant and uninformed, and then losing the plot entirely and making up accusations of nastiness when the response is in kind

I'm all for change but we're all going to disagree on stuff and that's just how it works
Making it personal isn't going to help

Mahogany

I'm sorry but the world is the at it's best to be honest;

• Least amount of warfare in history
• Least amount of starvation ever
• Uplifting out of poverty in countries like Brazil, China and India
• Basic income gauranteed in every European State
• In terms of Ireland, the healthiest relationship with Britain that we've ever witnessed
• Decimation of the Republicans in the United States
• Ever increasing Gay rights, womens rights, minority rights, etc.

I could name many more, but I'm sorry, I do not share your pessimistic view. Every other European state pays for their water, why shouldn't we? Everyone complains about politicians, but who could do a better job?

I am pie

Mahogany wrote: »

I'm sorry but the world is the at it's best to be honest;

• Least amount of warfare in history
• Least amount of starvation ever
• Uplifting out of poverty in countries like Brazil, China and India
• Basic income gauranteed in every European State
• In terms of Ireland, the healthiest relationship with Britain that we've ever witnessed
• Decimation of the Republicans in the United States
• Ever increasing Gay rights, womens rights, minority rights, etc.

I could name many more, but I'm sorry, I do not share your pessimistic view. Every other European state pays for their water, why shouldn't we? Everyone complains about politicians, but who could do a better job?

Melting ice caps, increasing global warming, fastest ever rate of extinction of non human species, disintegration of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan. Post colonial issues unresolved in countries "created" post WW2, more frequent financial crises (2001, followed by 2008), unsustainable levels of water and oil consumption, oceans with floating platic continents and from a human perspective the greatest discrepancy between wealth and poverty man has ever created.

All is most definitely not rosey in the garden, but fools like Brand and their wishy washy talk of spiritualism, conspiracy theories and rejecting democracy because they dont like the results are fairly unhelpful.

How do you solve these issues through spirituality and acceptance on one surpreme ghosty/spirity thing and splitting up into small communes of people who will suddenly act like no other society in human history, i.e. be greed and conflict free?

Vincent Vega

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr8Y9EMQVRQ

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Pretty obvious that 'nanny state' is a subjective term - opposing 'nanny state' policies, doesn't make someone a full-on Libertarian, opposed to any/all government action/intervention...

Rather pointless taking your (rather extreme black/white) definition of 'nanny state', and then applying that to the OP.

I love how people nowadays try to turn things when it goes against them. The term Nanny State is not subjective in the least. It is clearly stating that the government, or it's policies, are overly protective and overly interfers with personal choice. Whether one agrees with the Nanny State premise from the OP or not, the term is clear and the intention behind it's use unequivocal.

purplecow1977

Aren't there dedicated forums to discuss such issues?

After Hours doesn't seem the right place to discuss these matters.

I found the OP quite long and difficult to read, and really baffled as to why it features here in the first place.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Aren't there dedicated forums to discuss such issues?

After Hours doesn't seem the right place to discuss these matters.

I found the OP quite long and difficult to read, and really baffled as to why it features here in the first place.

Absolutely, but his view would have been mopped up in even less time on the politics, economy or environmental forums.

Mahogany

I am pie wrote: »

Melting ice caps, increasing global warming, fastest ever rate of extinction of non human species, disintegration of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan. Post colonial issues unresolved in countries "created" post WW2, more frequent financial crises (2001, followed by 2008), unsustainable levels of water and oil consumption, oceans with floating platic continents and from a human perspective the greatest discrepancy between wealth and poverty man has ever created.

All is most definitely not rosey in the garden, but fools like Brand and their wishy washy talk of spiritualism, conspiracy theories and rejecting democracy because they dont like the results are fairly unhelpful.

How do you solve these issues through spirituality and acceptance on one surpreme ghosty/spirity thing and splitting up into small communes of people who will suddenly act like no other society in human history, i.e. be greed and conflict free?

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but the glass is half empty with you that's for sure.


All is not rosey that of course is true, but when you admire your garden, what do you notice first? Weeds or Roses. It can never be all roses. There will always be a few weeds and unwanted fauna alike. But you have to concentrate on what stands out ie. Roses