0096 2251 2110 8105

Thanks to the rest of you for the helpful replies.

I just pointed out that this is a completely different approach. I'm focusing on this particular example, not on SD as such. Just like there is a thread for rights and there are a thousand others for particular examples of rights implementation, violation, etc. But that's OK, you are welcome to abstain from participating if you like to. Why? You supposedly already know what it is, and even gave a link where it is extensively defined. You can try here if you like.

Let me clear this up: I'm in college, and I have a SD class, which I just started again. See? Sorry if that was ambiguous, but I think I explained that in the thread you just pointed out. I just don't think it's that relevant. OK, I don't know if you just wanted to get all clever, or if you honestly didn't understand what I said, but if this is what you understood from that sentence, ignoring the next one, which explained what I thought SD looks like, you need to work on comprehension skills. Why would I call SD “Prius”? Yes, well, I was expecting this. I guess I wasn’t clear enough, but my point here is to discuss products of SD, and this specific example in particular. I think I gave the wrong impression with all the other things I wrote, I was just trying to bring a little context to the topic. So, to all the mods, I really hope that this thread will not be merged with the other, because no one would then give importance or pay the attention I’m looking for to this particular example.

Back to sustainable development class! I’ve been wondering about this for a while and…I’m starting to think it’s actually not that bad. Take a look at this, and don't just reject it in a gut reaction: 2010 Toyota Prius "Harmony" TV Commercial Wouldn’t you buy it? This is what I think sustainable development looks like. No “returning to nature”, no “reversion of the Industrial Revolution”, no “living like savages”, no “wiping out technology”, no “condemnation of cities, industry or the intellect." Only private and voluntary cooperative action, technology and innovation all the way down. This is just one example, but I believe “sustainable” products like this can perfectly coexist with a free capitalist system. I really don't think Ayn Rand's condemnation of the trends that sprung up at that time can apply to this. I mean, not even the vast majority of modern environmentalists take the ideas of these radical groups from the New Left seriously. Most of it is all gone. These are some other examples that have been suggested: So, what do you think? I still can’t find any criticisms from the ARI addressing specifically the issue of SD. But... look at it, is there really an issue here? Thoughts?

Ok, I’m not wasting much time on this, it’s all very well documented in modern historical literature and the sources are available to anyone who is truly interested in this topic. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. When I say Lenin, I’m talking about prior to 1917 Lenin, before taking power, destroying organs of workers control, the soviets, factory councils, etc. etc. this clearly has nothing to do with socialism, it’s the exact opposite, he was merely being opportunistic, in fact, he didn’t even believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. Now, when I say Stalin, well, he was obviously not a socialist, we don’t ever bother to talk about it, at least I’m not gonna, but what I was trying to point out is that he was, in my view, superior to Chavez in his methods and closer to socialism in his ideology. You know, everyone can have their say. I didn’t think it would be necessary to go deep into this. Yes, well, what I said is approximately what you (softwareNerd) said, I don’t think it’s much related to my answer, but sure I would agree with the last part of your post. Now, Black Wolf, *sigh* I’m not going there, seriously... You’ll have to do your own homework. I think I was clear enough when I said “traditional socialism or, say, Marxist tradition, or left libertarian tradition”, but if you think that “feudal socialism”, “German socialism”, “petty-bourgeois socialism”, “conservative socialism”, "stalinism", "social democracy", "nazism", "libertarian socialism", etc. etc. are all “socialism”, and "socialism" means absolutely all of them because you found this internet dictionary two-line definition, then “anarcho-capitalism”, “corporate capitalism”, “crony capitalism”, “state capitalism”, “finance capitalism”, “technocapitalism”, “state monopoly capitalism”, etc. etc. are all capitalism, including the Soviet Union! There. “Some socialist tolerate capitalism”? And you even stressed this?? What would you call a “capitalist that tolerates socialism”? A capitalist? And, excuse me?? Bourgeois class in a socialist system? And you think that “this doesn't seem contradictory to socialism at all”?? Ok, that’s enough, I should stop here. And I know what “mixed capitalism” is, which BTW is a very very loose generality, I just don’t see why you would even raise this completely unnecessary point.

Uh…what? Venezuela remains a bourgeois state, at the service of one bourgeois, not the working class. Hugo Chavez merely wears his red shirt to gain support from the working classes by exploiting some of the moral appeal of socialist ideas among the community, but his policies have been a complete support of the bourgeoisie, foreign investment, large state landowners, and so on, including his constitutional reform, made by him and friends, which was voted against by the Venezuelan left because it was only a maneuver to reaffirm the bourgeoisie as a tactic to gain more power. But Venezuela is not a socialist state, and Chavez is far from being a socialist, just as Stalin wasn’t, Mao, etc, at least in traditional socialism or, say, Marxist tradition, or left libertarian tradition, which are highly democratic. Venezuela is heading towards a very totalitarian social-reformist bureaucratic pro-bourgeoisie Government. I don’t see any control by the workers over production, communities, the institutions in which they work, etc. etc., I mean, what are you talking about?? If Lenin or Marx were to see what Hugo Chavez is doing, they would slap him in the face, even Stalin, who was a complete scum for socialism, would! I’m not defending Venezuela, Chavez or socialism, but people who love calling whatever sort of mixed or autocratic Government “socialism” without even analyzing if it follows the basic core minimum requirements of socialism need to think better before making this sort of claims, and abandon this little scapegoat once for all. Call it what you like, but I don’t see any prime example of socialism’s failure here.

Well, I’m just quoting what I can remember from an article written by one of my classmates. I don’t know exactly what he meant by this, he was just trying to be extravagant and witty in his use of language. I agree that most of this assessment is a little exaggerated, but they all love to find victims in every single piece of advertising. For example, this week we were asked to analyze this ad: Of course, the purpose of this is to make huge fuzz about it, get all disgusted and complain about how this publicity is spreading a horrible conception of women into society. The general attitude towards this piece is that this is supposed to be a description of the “ideal” woman, so those girls who don’t fill these requirements will feel hurt or upset, affecting their development in some areas of their lives, and therefore it is immoral. The last sentence didn't help either. I’m not a girl, and I’m personally not offended by this particular piece, but most of the girls in my class were, and I really don’t understand why. I mean, they take it so personally. Does anyone here feel any offended by this advert, or find it to be offensive?

I’ve been asked to do a little analysis of the impression that women give and how they’re depicted in some of today’s advertisements. The general viewpoint in my class is that women in these ads are shown in most of the cases as “easy”, “slutty”, vulgar sex objects, and that this leads to degradation and humiliation of women in general. Some were from local publicity, but you may be familiar with the AXE commercials, for example, where women always appear to engage in these lustful and vulgar acts with a complete stranger, and also approve and follow his “invasive” behavior just because of his deodorant, and that all this is shown as a sign of his audacity and masculinity, encouraging society to behave in this manner, spreading a degrading image of women and destroying moral values (I’m just quoting all this from memory.) However, they also say that women in those ads are the ones provoking men to act this way, and that they seem to want to be harassed, so others might think that therefore all this is justified. Do you agree with this assessment? What do you think of this kind of advertising?

Could you please elaborate on this a little more? When exactly was this and in what way was it implemented? Sorry, I am not very well acquainted with the U.S. history. As I understand there was something more or less like capitalism which ended up dissapearing by the 1920s or '30s. Is this what you're talking about?

Oh, not that again. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USOAkQWGVY

Yes, he is, what is so strange about someone calling himself “libertarian socialist”? Do you know what the name of the fallacy is?

Yeah, well, I agree with most of your answer, however, Chomsky knows what “true” capitalism is, I don’t think it’s OK to say that he is “obviously ignorant” about it, I don’t know about the questioner, but Chomsky has discussed this in many interviews and written works. I know this video alone can lead to misinterpretation, but let me speak for him and clarify that he is referring to what he calls “a variant of state capitalism”, not “true” capitalism, so, yeah, you can switch it with “planned economy” or “mixed economy”, if you like, the same thing. Also, he knows and has stated many times that there is nothing remotely like capitalism in existence, which makes me want to ask you, how is capitalism responsible for the U.S. prosperity if it has never been implemented? It’s almost as if you were giving credit to the "mixed economy" for it. Anyway, so, getting back to the topic, this is similar to the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument, but I think his answer is really legitimate in this case.

(I don't know if this topic belongs to the epistemology section, so correct me if I'm wrong) OK, so, first watch the first minute of this video: Ready? Now, at first my immediate reaction was that this was a brilliant response, but then something started bothering me, I thought this might be a fallacious answer, but I don’t know much about logical fallacies, so I couldn’t identify it. Maybe there is one, maybe not, but, in any case, I also think that the questioner is wrong, and Chomsky’s answer could be actually a legitimate one, showing the guy why he shouldn’t justify capitalism or whatever system on practical results alone. Still, I don’t know if this is the right way to put it. This also made me think of the argument that Yaron, Dr. Peikoff and others usually give when asked about pollution, which also bothers me a little, (here, for example: ) they simply associate it directly with longer life expectancies and that's it. Reminds me if this chart: http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads...phcopy2_800.jpg Thoughts?

I don't see the point of this thread. Do you want assistance or have a question?

Uh... What the hell are you talking about???

Do you seriously believe this is a proper or any valid justification to defend individual rights? What if I’m against private property and I simply don’t want my right to property to be respected by others? Does that give me a permission, under this emotional rule of yours, to violate someone else’s? Not at all. And…umm, BTW, why do you always write your name at the bottom of your posts if everyone here knows it’s you??

Uh, yes, I know you didn’t answer the question, that’s why I asked you to do so. True story. I “seemed” to recognize that you replied to the question. See? Now, I don’t want to waste much time on these false and groundless accusations of yours. Seriously, it is absurd and childish to keep insisting on this point. I asked the question, I know why I asked it, not you. This should be more than enough. In any case, I don’t need your approval or your meaningless evaluation, which you confirmed to be highly irrational and anti-intellectual, with this non-explanation of yours to "somehow" determine my motivation, which amounts to “Why? Because!” That is a terrible argument, you know? And that is “apparent for all to see.” I stressed this even more by raising the question of me being U.S. American. Seriously, stop it. Also, I don’t think that “American” is a concept exclusively for the disposition and use of this "English-speaking community", and I don’t think this group has the authority to brand countries neither. Would you please elaborate? Now, you answered the main question. That is fantastic, and I’m fine with it, as I said in my previous comment. Was it so hard? Oh, I forgot, you only deal with “worthwhile” "real" questions. But, wait a minute, you replied again? Wasn’t my question “unworthy of your time"? How many of these “unworthy” questions you like to answer? Do you also determine the worthiness or not of a question by emotion or its apparent "obviousness"? Anyway, I will only respond to direct honest answers to my main question, which I think is pretty much solved by now, so don't bother.

It doesn’t really bother me. I was curious, and wanted to find out if there was a good reason. I had the suspicion that it was merely an abbreviation, as I said from the start, and it happens to be, great. I just wanted a full clarification. As for your examples, like the United States of Europe, etc., well, it is certainly a problem, to me at least, that the English language doesn’t have a demonym for U.S. Americans that includes “United States” in it, like, say, in Spanish, which is "estadounidense." The problem here lies on how the gentilics are formed. I wouldn't call someone "United Kindomian" because it's not the standard thing to do, that would merely create confusion and it wouldn't sound normal or "good" because of that reason, but I wouldn't have a problem with it, not at all. It's just a matter of how the name was developed. Let me clarify that I’m not proposing to call the rest of the countries “America” as well, that would be ridiculous, and I don't see the point.

Really? Then why did you respond anyway? Personally, I find this little “deduction” of yours so spurious, and just plain silly, it’s “not worth responding to”, but I’m curious, so I'll go on. First, I’m dying to know how exactly you were able to determine my question was full of “blatant jealousy”. Would you please explain to us all in detail what your magic method was? This is just ridiculous, I said what I said, I'm the one who said it, and I’m the one who knows what motivations are. What if I tell you I’m from the U.S.? Grow up. I’m simply asking a basic elemental question, and the question is perfectly clear: America is first a continent, the U.S. citizens call themselves “Americans” and their country “America” (as if the rest of the continent was some strange unidentified piece of land, and their population were “non-Americans”), why? Well, apparently there’s no need to support this idea, or provide any rational explanation, because somehow this question is not “worth your response”, and it will always be a “envious act of blatant jealousy” to ask it. Give me a break. BTW, It makes no difference if it’s the U.S., Canada, Mexico or whatever who calls themselves “America”, in case you were planning say I’m all “anti-American” now, the question stands firm, just as if some European country started to call itself “Europe” with no apparent reason, it would still catch my attention in the same way. Oh, and who is this “we” that is going to "grant" my country with a “special name”? You? You and your friends? You and the forum? the U.S.? Why don't you do "something significant" yourself and answer the question?

No, actually, North America = Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Central America = Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Greater Antilles = Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico. Denmark, France, Netherlands, UK are in North America?? Are you serious???

I hope so. I told one of my classmates, who is a big fan of Heidegger and Postmodernism, as most of them, that not even Chomsky was able to understand it, and I completely agree with his statements about Derrida: Then I showed him his article about it, which I think it's great. He said: "Oh well, maybe he should grab a copy of Derrida for Dummies then. Lacan understood it." (I also happen to think Lacan is a complete fraud, so this was not very comforting, and I wasn't very convinced by that argument anyway) However, I somehow wasn't capable of replying anything to him, probably because I don't really know how to dismantle that kind of argument from intimidation (?) (now that I consider it, the last part might be an argument from authority, I don't know) This just gives me a feeling that (as the quote says) only a small exclusive prestigious "divine" elite has access to that power of understanding Postmodernist's writings, while the rest of us are just idiots who simply can't "get it". This obviously gives them an advantage, as one can't never attack their ideas because they're so obscure and ambiguous that one will always "misunderstand" them. Or maybe they actually do understand them, and I simply can't, but how can I know? This just drives me crazy.

Why does everyone like to call the United States “America” (as opposed to “North America”)? Is the rest of the continent not America? How is the U.S. the “real” America, while the other areas are just parts of it (“South America”, “Latin America”, etc)? I've been wondering about this for a while. Maybe it's just an abbreviation of "United States OF America", but still.

I am trying to understand deconstruction for one of my classes. None of my classmates can explain to me straightfordwardly what it is (even though they all say they know, but I know they're pretending) The complication of language and the use of foggy ambiguous rhetoric really makes it impossible for me to grasp it, and I don’t know if all this obscurantism is due to the high complexity of his thought, or just a pretentious manner to dress up the absurdity of a meaningless subject. Is anyone familiar with it? I found a video where he is asked about it, I don't think he answers, he just babbles around: On this other video he loosely defines it at the beginning: So, apparently deconstruction means to incorporate historical facts when understanding concepts (???) It’s early for me to say, but I think this guy is a charlatan, and deconstruction is plain rubbish. Oh God…at least postmodernists make me laugh at times.

http://www.live365.com/stations/freecapitalist OMG, they're talking about THIS forum right now, not in a really good way though. Damn, I was starting to like that station.

Speaking of possible anti-concepts… Do you think that the term “opportunism” or “opportunist” can/should be used properly? Or just in a pejorative way? I personally don’t think so, it would depend of what the “opportunity” consists of. I ask this because we’re having little elections here, and there’s a candidate who makes use of every single event (seriously, everything) to advertise himself, so he’s always being called an “opportunist”. But, maybe he is just maximizing his methods and making a good use of the resources available. I don’t know, sometimes is hard to differentiate it from mere demagogy and populism. Anyway, that’s just an example. What do you think?