I just read the wall street journal article, to me, it goes to prove that it is a religion.
Global warming is occurring and what it the difference between prophets saying global warming is doom and other prophets 'WJS' saying it is not happening. Both are prophecy, each predicting the opposite of the other.
Any yes global warming is occurring, it's effects are not understood
Communism is not an economic system but a system of government. Everyone is responsible for the rest of society (religion or not) European caring for it citizens. Now I am a US citizen living in the Netherlands. I see the difference in the banking systems. The banking system here is proven to be far better than banking in the US. Why you ask. Well it is simple if they change and upgrade the systems they will no longer be able steal blindly from the poor, nor will they have the time lapse between when a check is written and they cash it. The interest to their pockets is tremendous and they are not accountable for it,.
If they up dated the system the shop keepers would stop losing money on bounced checks
Yes the finacil market can easily be classed as a religion, they worship wealth and money
Allan
On Dec 18, 2011 2:39 AM, "Don Johnson" <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:
So here's your thesis:'What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
coercion to get us to play its games.'I'm guessing you're referring to consumerism here? I'm not buying it and here's why. If economics is the study of how humans buy, sell, produce and trade and the effects of different methods of doing this micro and macrowise then the objective is to come up with a system that promotes the best chances for overall improvement of EVERYBODY. Or at least the most possible. The goal should be(dangerous word, i know) advancement. Improvement. Not stagnation. Or stagflation as the case might be. As far as I understand it there is no 'new' economics. Our studies have given us a fairly broad idea of the effects of different kinds of taxes and regulations. The mostly economic illiterate folks in Congress look for the quick fix or the kick back with no understanding or concern about unintended consequences. Folks are naturally going to look out for themselves and their family first. It is to be expected.The major flaw, the fly in the ointment as it were, I see in most all "alternative" economies is the assumption that folks won't mind working for free or worse, carrying the biggest load and yet sharing equally. It never quite works out like that no matter how many times a country tries it. The winners live in the best houses, drive the best cars and in communist countries they all 'work' for the government. Their kids wear the best clothes(mostly blackmarket no doubt) and get the best educations all on the dime of the butchers and bakers and candlestick makers. I don't see this as a religious situation I see it as a justice situation. If I'm giving you quid I damn sure expect my quo.Nobody wants dirty water and dirty air so regulation is required and desirable but we still must have an organized and visible path to improvement for the most amount of people or there's no incentive. This obviously means some will be left out and will require charity to survive OR will get off their collective asses and find something constructive to do. Dignity is earned; not bequeathed. Those truly needy few with physical and mental disabilities should be cared for and will be. If the disability is laziness then I have no compassion at all. Others will, of course, so the clueless will still be taken care of by those who see it as their duty. Religious folks mostly incidentally. I do see the relationship between charity and religion.Sorry if I'm way off topic here and sorry I'm flooding you with my already well publicized beliefs. I have no examples of the arguments you're looking for Neil. If the purpose of an argument is to belittle your interlocutor instead of resolving the disagreement then I suppose avoiding ad homs is counterproductive. Otherwise I try to stick with the formula if I can.Here's a link to a short piece on the relationship between globalwarmism and religion. I know your standing on the matter but maybe reading this guy's method of comparing the two will give some ideas for your piece. Luck with that Neil.dj
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:While I was sailing I met a man who owned according to his wife 17 companies, Even though he wanted to be a cruising sailor like me it was more important that the people he employed had jobs than for him to live his dream.Now that man I respect and in a way I am envious of the mans beliefs and courage.AllanOn Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
That is true Molly we have need to put it some where,, I think the question is when does it become a religion.AllanOn Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, beyond the math part of economics we have personal integrity. In olden days of yore when the handshake was the bond integrity and word of mouth reputation dictated success in growing your business. These days lawyers and contracts seem to have replaced integrity for the most part. Even so, in going into business with someone and even in signing a contract you are, in effect, having "faith" that the other party will comply. So maybe there's a connection here with religion. I'm currently reading "Titan", John D. Rockefeller's bio. He felt it his duty, his calling if you will, to make as much money and give as much money away as he possibly could. For him, economics was definitely religious. He felt himself obviously favored by God because of his successes.Economics as a science has always been a bit of a tough sell to me. Same with psychology. Too many human variables to botch the experiments.djOn Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Don Johnson <dajohn@gmail.com> wrote:Wish I had seen this earlier I'm getting off soon and don't have time to do any research until tonight. I'm not sure about a relationship between religion and economics but I definitely see one between religion and business. Historically we tend to trust those that share our beliefs over those that don't. So Jews favor Jews and protestants favor protestants and so on. I believe the Koran even stipulates giving favoritism to Muslims in owning land, slaves and paying taxes and so forth. Apostates are reviled.I'm pretty sure this is not what you're talking about though. I'm interested to see what others have to say.djOn Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:00 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
being immoral).
The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
might be as follows:
Dialogue types:
Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
exchange depends upon;
2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
scientific discussion and negotiation);
4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
logical consequence of another;
5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
kinds of argument);
6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
the person; etc.);
7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
"economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
spirituality.
It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
talking about yet!
--
()|_D AllanLife is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
--
()|_D AllanLife is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário