For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Consider me disarmed by your wit.bobevenson wrote:It came naturally, like the iron hand of government socialism you live under.John wrote:I should have know better than to use irony.
Some people, in an attempt to actualize their selfish desires, bundle them in a package that can easily be sold to the populace.Arising_uk wrote:What evidence do you have that the hunter/gatherer had a better state of mind than the agrarians, given that it was the agrarians that produced civilization? What do you mean by destroying mind given that we are at a higher state of knowledge, literacy and information than ever before?sushil_yadav wrote:The difference is in scale and magnitude of environmental destruction.
Hunter_Gatherer society destroyed environment only for food......Agrarian society destroyed environment for Food, Clothing & Shelter......Industrial Society has destroyed environment for Food, Clothing, Shelter plus Thousands of Industrial Consumer Goods and Services.
If we compare the scale and magnitude of environmental destruction of the three human societies we have had on earth will find :
Hunter_Gatherer society was least destructive/ hardly caused any destruction......Agrarian Society was thousands of times more destructive.......Industrial Society is millions of times more destructive.
sushil_yadav
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Whilst I don't disagree that much damage is being done I think the idea of harking back to some earlier utopia is the wrong way to go. We should be thinking bigger, the Solar System contains vast mineral resources that would replace the need to mine here, at the very least if we could mine and capture asteroids we could place them around the the Earth and a simple iron cable from them to the ground would produce vast amounts of free green energy until the Earth stops turning.
Bob, why do your words always seem to ooze, the silly game?bobevenson wrote:It came naturally, like the iron hand of government socialism you live under.John wrote:I should have know better than to use irony.
Honey, until you've read and understood "The Ouzo Prophecy," I would refrain from making any comments that could have a bearing on your salvation, O my sister in tribulation!SpheresOfBalance wrote:Bob, why do your words always seem to ooze, the silly game? Oh, I'm sorry, that's right it's: Ouzo, the silly game!bobevenson wrote:It came naturally, like the iron hand of government socialism you live under.John wrote:I should have know better than to use irony.
Yeah, what ever you say, my son!bobevenson wrote:Honey, until you've read and understood "The Ouzo Prophecy," I would refrain from making any comments that could have a bearing on your salvation, O my sister in tribulation!SpheresOfBalance wrote: Bob, why do your words always seem to ooze, the silly game? Oh, I'm sorry, that's right it's: Ouzo, the silly game!
Apparently, it would seem that for most, relativity goes right over their heads, when assessing value. What is rich, after all?.bobevenson wrote:How the fuck can anybody be rich or happy paying $9.33 a gallon for gas and being taxed to death to pay for your cradle-to-grave government doled out benefits??? Wake up and smell the coffee or whatever the fuck you people drink!!!John wrote:And yet they're happier and richer than Americans.bobevenson wrote:Norwegians will never be delighted about anything since they live their vacant lives under sheer government oppression.
That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?
Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?
That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?
bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.
OK, back at me huh? Of course that can be said to be true, but my way of thinking opens the doors to many possibilities, potentially negating the ruling class, while yours is an unoriginal, stale, archaic, limiting idea, that is steeped in elitism!bobevenson wrote:That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.
A person who writes in red is an elitist, no?SpheresOfBalance wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.OK, back at me huh? Of course that can be said to be true, but my way of thinking opens the doors to many possibilities, potentially negating the ruling class, while yours is an unoriginal, stale, archaic, limiting idea, that is steeped in elitism!bobevenson wrote:That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.
Symbolism in color, huh?bobevenson wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.bobevenson wrote:That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.A person who writes in red is an elitist, no?SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK, back at me huh? Of course that can be said to be true, but my way of thinking opens the doors to many possibilities, potentially negating the ruling class, while yours is an unoriginal, stale, archaic, limiting idea, that is steeped in elitism!
Yeah, Bob you're right, what ever you want Bob! I simply alternate colors for delineation's sake, Bob.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Symbolism in color, huh?bobevenson wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.bobevenson wrote:That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.A person who writes in red is an elitist, no?SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK, back at me huh? Of course that can be said to be true, but my way of thinking opens the doors to many possibilities, potentially negating the ruling class, while yours is an unoriginal, stale, archaic, limiting idea, that is steeped in elitism!
bobevenson wrote:Oh, if it's only for delineation's sake, then it's OK. We don't want to shortchange delineation, do we?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:What is rich, after all?
bobevenson wrote:That can only be determined under a system of free-market capitalism and personal freedom.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Incorrect, rich is a matter of mind, and is relative like, and subject to, that of value. It is a subjective decision.
bobevenson wrote:That's just your point of view, and it certainly doesn't negate another person's point of view. Within a free-market milieu, everybody is able to draw his own conclusion.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK, back at me huh? Of course that can be said to be true, but my way of thinking opens the doors to many possibilities, potentially negating the ruling class, while yours is an unoriginal, stale, archaic, limiting idea, that is steeped in elitism!
bobevenson wrote:A person who writes in red is an elitist, no?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Symbolism in color, huh?
I take it you have a mouse in your pocket...bobevenson wrote:Oh, if it's only for delineation's sake, then it's OK. We don't want to shortchange delineation, do we?