Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. 12
  2. 6
  3.  @eoin8450  China started out communist. Communism cannot exist without authoritarianism. However, central planning of an economy, is just too complicated for a small elitist authority. So, they allowed a decentralisation of small businesses and small market gardens. It seemed to work but it was still at the behest of the central planning authority. Since it did work, they allowed it to expand but the key word is "ALLOWED". It's expanded to the point that it is now, but it's still only allowed.....it's at the permission of centrally planned government. It's why Huawei is involved in all kinds of espionage. They exist at the behest of the central authoritarian government. If Huawei refuses, that could spell the end of the top executives of that company. That's illegal in a free capitalist country. The government cannot force you to do something you don't want to do. That's an infringement of their rights. China is somewhere between a free capitalist society and communism and it's a lot closer to communism than it is to a western style government and economy. That's why early 20th century economic pundits called Fascism, National Socialism. It's somewhere between our western style government and economy and communism.....Fascism to be precise. I came to this conclusion after reading memoirs of Soviet and Nazi era writers and realised that the only difference between the 2 was that the communist Soviets micro managed and the socialist Nazis allowed the companies to micro manage. However, both were in full control of the big picture.
    6
  4. 5
  5. 5
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. Bartleby Oregon How does it benefit the team to share the ball with me if I refuse to develop my individual skills to be of any help to the teams. A team of individuals who do not hone their individual skills will be a losing team, no matter how much they're willing to share the ball. I am of no use to the basketball team if I do not, first and foremost, develop my ability to play the game. The team is only as good as the total of the abilities of each individual. Peterson is not telling you not to share. He is saying that if you're of little value to yourself, you'll never be of value to anyone else or society in general. When one builds a house, quite often that person brings in a team of people with specialised skills to complete the job. An architect, concrete finishers, block layers and brick layers, carpenters, electricians, drywallers, roofers and decorators. They each use their skills to form a team that will complete the building of the house. However, if the block layer lacks the skill and the foundation that he builds starts to crack and the foundation is in danger of crumbling, the best carpenters and electricians in the world cannot prevent the house from deteriorating long before its time. To build a decent house, each individual must be develop their personal skills to do their part in the construction. A poor tradesman drags down the entire team of builders. That's the emphasis on the individual that Peterson is advocating. A socially and poorly developed individual is a handicap, not an asset, to society as a whole.
    2
  18.  @eoin8450  Socialism has never been owned by the workers. It's something they say but every socialist system has been a top down system. The state, who CLAIM that they represent the workers, or that they are in fact the workers (never true, though) controls it all. The only difference, I've said it before, between the communist state and the fascist state is that communism tries to manage it all, from the macro to the micro. Fascism controls the macro, each industry and lets them deal with the micro management, the day to day stuff. Fascism realises that the details are too complex to deal with it all so they give a little more freedom to make the micro decisions but they still control it all, in the name of the state, which is the people. That's why it's National Socialism, state Socialism or, as in Germany, National Socialist German Workers' Party. They still claim to be representing the Workers. The workers are the backbone of the Fascist state. Unions are disbanded and replaced by party representatives who monitor productivity, loyalty and worker grievances. No one, from the owners, top management to the guy pushing a broom is safe from that Party rep. It's the same in the Soviet state, except their is no ownership, just top management, but they are just as much beholden to the Party reps as their counterparts, the ownership and management, as Fascist workplaces. Fascist owners are allowed more leeway in market place markets, as long as it doesn't interfere with national goals.
    2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. Of course those images showing an oblate earth are images and not the real thing. They're done that way as an exaggeration to show how the earth is not a perfect sphere. In reality, those difference only amount to 42 miles out of 25,000 miles, a difference so small in its relationship that it's not detectable with the naked eye when looking at the composite images of the earth or the pictures taken during the moon landings. It isn't nearly as oblate as depicted in those images. It's done that way for educational purposes to show exactly where the shapes are actually different. The reality isn't nearly as exaggerated. I've already explained that to you once. It's not that hard a concept to understand. I watched that video, or most of it, that you recommended. It's full of inaccuracies and fallacies. He has no idea on the properties of gravity and how it works on falling objects or a plane. A carpenter's level always works to the gravitational centre of the earth and that's exactly how a plane works. It's engines maintain a constant speed to maintain altitude because gravity will keep it at the exact same distance to the gravitational centre. Decrease that speed an gravity will pull it down and the flaps will have to be moved to maintain altitude. A plane does not have to correct itself to follow the curve of the earth. Gravity does that for the plane as long as it maintains a certain speed and no steering mechanisms are changed. I do not see the sun getting smaller until it reaches a vanishing point in the far north. What the sun does is reach its highest point a little lower every day until it is so low it no longer clears the horizon. Everyone of us that has ever been to the Arctic will tell you that's what happens. The sun does not get to the size of a star before vanishing completely. That has never been observed. There are a lot of good Christians that know the earth is round. Believing in God and a round earth isn't mutually exclusive and saying that denying a flat earth is an attempt to discredit a God is ridiculous. You can get a decent telescope and point it at Jupiter and watch that planet rotate on its' axis and see moons orbiting around it. Why is this planet different than the earth. The crescent moon doesn't work if the moon is flat either. Also, it seems a little disingenuous to call all evidence of a round earth lies and CGIs and accept any prove of a flat earth as fact. That's a little self serving and no way to prove a point.
    1
  26. Are you really that thick that you can't understand the difference between a perfect sphere and one that's just a little imperfect? 42 miles difference out of 25,000 miles. That's 0.168 percent of the size. Not a big deal. That's all they're saying. It's not quite a perfect sphere. So to demonstrate the imperfection they sometimes have an exaggerated illustration to show where that imperfection lies. However, when looking at a composite image of the earth, that slight difference is undetectable. They're making a statement of accuracy. Wow....how can this seem so baffling? Once again, I'm going to have to explain this to you. The satellites, in spite of being in space, are too close to take a full shot of the earth. Remember my example of taking a single complete picture of a house standing 5 feet away from it? Have you even tried to visualize what this entails? It cannot be done because you're to close to the house. A satellite in space cannot take a full picture of the earth because the earth is too close. The only way they can show a picture is a composite, a CGI. You're being deliberately obtuse in repeating this "how come it's a CGI image?" question. There is no satellite far enough away to take a full picture of the earth. You don't have to believe it but at least quit pretending that you don't get this simple concept. No one was around to see how the moon was formed. Maybe God did create it. Who really knows? However, they have designed computer simulations and found a scenario that works and can explain how it could have happened. Science knows that it may not be that way but thus far, it has been the most likely scenario to explain its existence. They will leave this as the most likely explanation unless someone can show, using math and science, a more likely explanation. Once again, you don't have to believe it but your incredulity isn't enough to refute it and you must be intelligent enough to understand how and why this theory is being presented. They have observed all the planets in our solar system along with their moons and they're all basically spherical. They have discovered 715 exoplanets, planets outside our solar system, and they're also round. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, earth, isn't a sphere. It's flat. Every other celestial body observed is a sphere but not earth. Well, isn't that odd. A flat earth doesn't explain gravity or any of its properties. It doesn't explain why all those moons keep going around Saturn, Jupiter, Mars Neptune or Uranus. You don't have to believe that it happens but a half decent telescope in your back yard and you can watch it happen for yourself. But of course, the natural rules of nature don't apply to earth, just everything else cause the earth is so special. Of course, the government and NASA and the Illuminati and the elite don't want us to know that the earth is flat because if we knew that we'd all revolt and worship God and quit our jobs and refuse to pay our bills and....I'm not really sure why it's so important that we believe the earth to be round. It's all some kind of ruse for some nefarious purpose. Satan has to be behind it all. Another question I have is about my TV satellite dish. Why is it I have to make sure it's pointed to an exact location in the sky to pick up a TV image? My neighbour has to have his pointed at the exact same location. One of those imaginary satellites that NASA is lying about putting up there? Is that what I'm trying to locate when I'm zeroing in on that exact spot in the sky? I'm going to have to reiterate my explanation of why all images from NASA, the European space agency, the Russian space program, the Chinese,Indian and Japanese space satellites can't show a complete picture of the earth. All those satellites, from all those countries are too close to the earth to take a full picture of the earth. The only way they can show the entire planet is to form a composite picture, a CGI. It's either that or every country that has a satellite and every university in the world, every book, science magazine in every library have all conspired to fool us because they all worship Satan or the lizard people or something. All pilots and co-pilots, shipping companies, surveyors....all in on it. And you, the smart guy that you are, can spot how they are lying. I'm still not sure why they would do all this lying. Perhaps you could explain it to me. How is it to their advantage that some dumb factory worker, like me, believes that the earth is round? How does that benefit anyone? If nothing else, explain that to me.
    1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. Batosai11489 Who says that logic and reason is the path to Paradise? I don't recall anyone ever saying that. I'm laughing at the idea that a "tribe" of people dedicated to the principles of logic and reason would arrive at the illogical conclusion that to rid the world of illogical and unreasonable people is to kill them all off. Logic dictates that this would be an illogical use of resources and humanity. It also goes against any logic that says that those who do not always use logic are of no use as humans to society. That these people cannot work, love, learn, achieve or contribute to the whole of humanity. That's illogical in itself. In other words, you're asserting that the "logical tribe" will abandon all logic and begin a genocide of the illogical. Everyone uses logic. We abandon logic when they allow emotions to dictate a belief system or a trauma in our lives and we all do it to a certain extent. What would be a logical response to sustained illogical thought is to cultivate a culture of thinking things through, to use the inherent logic we all possess to control our emotional responses in a positive manner. There is no such thing a "logical tribe". There is only logic and reason and how much we choose to use it and where we use it. What you're proposing is an Orwellian attempt to control thought. Logic and reason encourages thought in a free and expressive manner because logic dictates that mistakes are also an inherent human trait and a new train of thought could come from anyone or anywhere because we all think and our thoughts are always trying to assume some sort of order, which again implies logic. If logic and reason are an inherent part of individual human personality, inherently flawed but still present, then we'd be attempting to eliminate those with flawed logic, but it could only manifest itself on specific topics. A person could logically solve a difficult mathematical equation and then illogically stick a needle in his arm that evening with heroin in it. Logical and illogical are within us all. That's why I'm laughing. We'd be killing the entire human race and that's illogical.
    1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1