Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Big Think"
channel.
-
12
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@eoin8450
A lot of this is semantics. If the definition of socialism is control of the economy by the state, then fascism is a form of socialism. It's all a matter of control of the economy. Capitalism is free market, no control, except rule of law, the law which even the state must adhere to. State capitalism would be an oxymoron. It's freedom with control by the state by decree of the state with the law put down by the state. You can't have both, a free market and a state run economy.
To me, it's the left/right culture description that doesn't make sense. I see freedom, in it's purest form, on the far right, total anarchy. However, that kind of freedom imposes a tyranny of its own. So, we introduce the rule of law, overseen by the state but a state subject to that rule of law. As you move further left, the rule of law loses its power and the state gathers more power and starts to control the economy, gathering each corporate board under its power until power is completely gained under a state run economy. The journey finally ends in total macro and micro control of the economy and society and we're at a communist state. To me, that makes more sense than the state in control at both ends of the left/right paradigm. No control at one end and total control at the other.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1