"Meldon" (meldon_fens{at}meldon.com) writes:
> "Andre Lieven"  wrote in message
> news:d0dnma$osl$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> "Meldon" (meldon_fens{at}meldon.com) writes:
>> > "Andre Lieven" 
wrote in message
>> > news:d0d439$auc$1{at}theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> >>
>> >>>>....
>> >> > Money without anywhere to spend it or people to
impress with it does
>> >> > not appear to be satisfactory reasoning.
>> >>
>> >> To *you*. Tell me, have you heard scores of rich people
all declaring
>> >> " No, I don't want to grow my business, I have
*enough* " ?
>> >
>> > Agreed. I'm sugesting there is an ensatiable hunger for more and more
>> > wealth and I'm proposing a reason for it.
>>
>> For it to be a " reason ", you would need to, first,
show some *facts*
>> that make the " reason " plausable.
>>
>> As yet, you have offered none.
>
> I've offered an only an example of a possible reason.

Not really, no.

> The debate seeks more possibilities.

Possibilities are irrelevent. Facts are relevent.

> It's your oportunity.

Nope: YOUR claim, YOUR burden to prove.

>> >> Besides, you just created a straw woman: That of having
" (no)where
>> >> to spend it on. "
>> >
>> > I thought we were agreeing.
>>
>> Not really, no.
>>
>> > Ok. I'll bite. Based on your example, why wouldn't your
statement >> The
>> > usual reasons: Money and power/control.>> also be a staw?
>>
>> Because *facts* support those being common reasons.
>
> Hmm... yes I see. So money/power/control freaks have no idea of the
> destruction they are causing or are they aware but blinded or some other
> reason?

In many cases, its the " destruction ", IOW, changes being made that
grant more power, locally, to the change demanders.

> Yes this may require some speculation for the purpose of discussion.
> It's not a sin.

Its also not factual. Its fantasy.

>> >> Read " Oprah " and " " Vogue "
and " Cosmo " lately ? Their advertisers
>> >> do appear to believe that they provide a lot of "
somewhere " to spend
>> >> women's cash...
>> >
>> > I agree. But taken to the extreme, a destructed society is
not benefical
>> > to anyone.
>>
>> " Politics is perception ". This is also not news.
>
> Ok, there's another score for a bot.

Wrong. Its a basic FACT of politics.

>> > So how can the greed (or whatever mechanism is at the core of
the onion)
>> > be so powerful that it can overrun intelligent people's common sense?
>>
>> Very easily: " Common " sense is a MS-nomer, in that it
is not that
> common.
>
> Ok. Lack of common sense then?

Often, thus claiming that any non-commonsensical choices must be the
work of an " evil conspiracy " are themselves utterly nonsensical.

>> > (those people for instance that wish to grow their business as you
> stated).
>>
>> Given how many businesses fail, common sense doesn't appear to be doing
>> that well over there, either.
>
> So these businesses fail beacuse common sense yeilds to greed?

Hardly. Much business depends on greed.

> (Greed then would be the
> closest root cause and this may be correct since greed has also been
> around for a very long time, even in excess of the 3000 years I stated.

So ? Thats so non specific an explanation, as to be useless beyond
rhetorical and vague generalities.

> Now we're getting somewhere.

Again with Captain Obvious: The point to is determine HOW " greed "
is a factor, in a plethora of actions and choices, which demands far
more *specific* and factual information than saying " Greed is bad ".
As often, its not. Greed makes some folks build things, so that they
can get paid more than they already have, and the building of the useful
things adds to others' wealth and ability to use that wealth.

>> >> > Perhaps if the elite are completely
>> >> > stupid (which I don't believe), your suggestion
would be suitable.
>> >>
>> >> Ibid.
>> >>
>> >> > I would suggest
>> >> > that the motivation behind such insatiable greed is
the belief that
>> >> > whites are going to be wiped out (race wars for example).
>> >>
>> >> Then, I'd have to say, stop watching bad tv and start
dealing with the
>> >> real world. Theres no " race war " acomin'...
>> >
>> > We are both seeking the onion's core. Provide suitable replacement here
>>
>> Why ? I'm not making claims of " upcoming race wars ".
If YOU have any
>> actual facts to support that claim, its YOUR task to present such.
>
> It was only an example.

No it wans't. Examples have to have a basis in FACT. As you offered
AbZero facts, your conclusion was another example of GIGO.

> You have to see the difference between an example of
> a core principle and the actual core principle. I'm sure you can.

No, and once again, you demand that I do your homework for you.
No to that, too.

If you make a claim, the ONLY person *responsible* for backing it up,
is... YOU. Period.

If you can't/won't, then your claim fails.

>> >> > If a pending disaster
>> >> > is known (or perceived), then it would serve to
motivate those who
>> >> > know, to seek ever increasing wealth.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly and totally wrong. Heres why: In times of disaster, people
>> >> who wish to hoard wealth, do NOT hoard paper: securities, stocks,
>> >> and cash. Because, when the *economy that underpins that paper
>> >> goes to shit, so does the paper*.
>> >
>> > I think you're supporting my point.
>>
>> Again, no.
>>
>> > The hypothetical your describing is a
>> > point along the destruction path. The point I'm describing comes later.
>>
>> Proof ? Uh huh.
>
> I think you're saying the journey of knowledge can't begin until you know
> all the facts since you need proof before a concept can even be explored.

Utterly wrong. You need to have some facts, so that you can search for
more, in places where they exist. If you pointed an astronomical
telescope at a railroad station, you surely would not be doing astronomy.
If you don't know that you need to point your telescope UP, then your
search for more such facts is *guaranteed to fail*.

> That is absolutely false. I've offered concepts which given productive
> converstation may yield greater understanding. By comparison, by requiring
> proof of any given possible concept, you kill any hope of exploration.

Wrong. See above. As yet, you continue to offer vague and untestable
generalities. That is not the path towards getting more facts.

> Did Edmond Hillary know all the facts concerning the conquering of Everest,
> before he set out? I think not.

No, you *know not*. Thats different.

> Along the way he had to improvise and I dare
> say original plans were trashed by the time they were actually climbing.

Oh, so he threw away his climbing gear ? ROTFLMAO ! Adaptation is
not a synonym for " trashing ".

> Give me an example of exploration where everything was known first. Bloody
> rediculous.

Apollo 11. Because, the proper preparations were made, where first
unmanned craft were crashed into the Moon, taking photos all the way
down, then orbiters and soft landers got the information about the
surface and where a first ship could safely land, then manned Apollo
fights checked out all the hardware ( Apollo 7-10 ), up to use around
the Moon, and *only when all those preliminary steps had validated the
location and hardware for a landing*, was a landing attempted.

So, you lose. Next !

>> > Perhaps
>>
>> Why " perhaps " ? Don't you *know* ?
>
> Now you're just playing silly games. You seek no greater understanding -
> only discourse.



>> > I am using a hypothetical consisting of total destruction, where you
>> > are describing a hypothetical which consists of non-total destruction.
>>
>> Non sequitur. In a case of " total destruction ", wealth
is irrelevent,
>> due to there being NO ONE to be wealthy...
>
> Congratulations on a point I already made and you adamantly disagreed
> with.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

>> Try again. Stick to the small words.
>
> You seem to be unable to follow the thread of convesation.



> I'm not debating for the sake of a debate. I'm debating for the sake of
> understanding.

And, you're utterly failing.

>> >> >> If a Feminist woman can have all the "
advantages " of marriage that
>> >> >> she values, such as unilateral control, and some
one else's
> resources
>> >> >> with which to exercise that control, then thats
the reason right
> there.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would point out that corruption and misleading the
public did not
>> >> > begin with feminism therefore it can not be the root
cause although
> it
>> >> > certainly does serve as an example of the corruption model.
>> >>
>> >> Absurd. No one claimed that any one specific cause had to *invent*
>> >> the concept: That too, is a straw woman of your own illicit birth.
>> >> Play with her, on your own time.
>> >
>> > Sorry. I was hoping to resolve the underlying mechanism.
>>
>> Well, you failed. Deal with it.
>
> You helped a lot.

Indeed, because I eschew empty rhetoric for the facts.

Knowledge uber speeches.

>> > The woman thing
>>
>> ... Feminism thing...
>>
>> You just made the common but absurd MS-take of equating a birth
>> group, with a political special interest.
>
> A birth group? What the fuck are you talking about Jimmy?

Any group to which one is a member, due to being born as one therof.

Men. Women. Blacks. Asians. Etc. Duh !

>> That was foolish of you.
>
> You're an idiot.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

>> > is one thing but there are others.
>>
>> Thank you, Captain Obvious.
>
> You really are a jerk.

 " I've been called worse things by better people. "
Pierre Trudeau.

Its too bad, for you, that I disagree with your silly and menaingless
empty tripe, but get used to it: In the real world, bullshit walks.

>> > All of them share the ellusive destructive element.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> Go find a well accepted view established by someone else then freak.

Sentence analysed: Zero content.

>> > While we see can see it manifest throughout the ages in various
>> > forms, man killing man for example, there will no doubt be a common
> source.
>>
>> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> Proof you're an asshole.



>> > Religious people might describe it as the work of the devil
for example.
>> > Perhaps its the rational equivalent of the evil (ignorance or whatever)
>> > inside us?
>>
>> Look up the phrase " The banality of evil " sometime.
>
> I will and I won't be surpised if it completly irrelevant to this
> convesation.

Yet, since I know it, and it's historical context, and you... DON'T,
that is rather... unlikely.

>> >> Rather, common human traits can be used for a myriad of
purposes and
>> >> by a myriad of ideologies. As Feminism contains nothing but hate of
>> >> men and masculinity, with a dollop of " give me
more, I don't have
>> >> to earn any of it ", it logically follows that
Feminism will use
>> >> existing human tropes, in support of it's bigotry. Just as any
>> >> ideologhy of hate and bigotry does the same. Its just that there is
>> >> a difference between how Feminism does it, and, say, the KKK.
>> >
>> > I am totally on your side.
>>
>> Good: You learn, grasshopper. 
>
> If you were able to comprehend English, you would have known I already
> understood and agreed with your well known points which we are not really
> discussing.

Not relaly, no. I am the final arbiter of what I know.

>> >> >> The rest of the Divorce Industry is there to
also get money from
>> >> >> being a part of that shakedown. Likewise, the
single mommy industry.
>> >> >> Lawyers. Social service workers and agencies. Etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agreed, but the feminist phenomenon is not the only
destructive force
>> >> > society has faced.
>> >>
>> >> OK: Again, since no one claimed otherwise, your statement is a
>> >> tautology.
>> >
>> > Again sorry. It is the logical next step to explore the core mechanism.
>> > I thought you were travelling with me.
>>
>> Only as far as the facts take me.
>
> Then remain behind.

No, thats where your anti fact based plans will leve you. Your loss.

>> >> > This is why I propose a greater evil is responsible and it has
>> >> > been around for a long time - not 30 years, but on
the order of 3000
>> >> > years.
>> >>
>> >> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>> >
>> > Lies, deception, abuse of power and control? Are you suggesting these
>> > are new?
>>
>> Those are a plurality of *effects*. You wrote as if you were claiming
>> a *singularity of cause*.
>
> There may be.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

> I'm exploring the possiblities or at least hoped to.

No, you're merely asserting, *without any facts or proof*.

Thats GIGO, again...

>> >> >> > which so far is marginalizing a group
within society based on
> gender.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Its not their gender...
>> >
>> > The group marginalized is men and especially fathers. I don't get your
>> > point.
>>
>> That it is such men, and not women, being so marginalised.
>
> I'm not disagreeing. What's with you?

Your silly avoidance of any... facts.

>> >> > I think many divorced fathers would diagree.
>> >>
>> >> Read " The Divorce From Hell ", by Wendy
Dennis, " Divorced Dads;
>> >> Shattering The Myths ", by Sanford Braver, "
The Unexpected Legacy
>> >> Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ", Judith
Wallerstein, and
>> >> " The Myth Of Male Power ", by Warren Farrell,
and then, once you've
>> >> mastered the topic, get back to me...
>> >
>> > I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me there is a problem. I

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100