The thing most similar to the Anti-christ in the modern world

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The quality of your method is linked to your idea, and by pointing out your faulty method, your idea is placed in question.

If you're referring to the reproduction of numbers to implicate biblical meaning, I've moved passed that - and stated it is not apart of my argument, so, ipso facto, it cannot be linked to it.

In the OP my argument was not dependent on this (I do believe Digi used the term) "overarching argument", yet he hasn't acknowledged it for what it was - conceded to the debunkers. It is superfluous, so I attempted to restate my overreached argument at the beckoning of Digi.

Now we're getting into it being beneath forum standards because it lacks an anti-thesis, but I rarely see anti-theses supplemented to the arguments on these boards.

Originally posted by Oneness
If you're referring to the reproduction of numbers to implicate biblical meaning, I've moved passed that - and stated it is not apart of my argument, so it cannot be linked to it.

In the OP my argument was not dependent on this (I do believe Digi used the term) "overarching argument", yet he hasn't acknowledged it for what it was - conceding to the debunkers.

What I was telling you applies to the overall, and can be useful for any debate.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the argument at hand. Instead, it was a general concept.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I was telling you applies to the overall, and can be useful for any debate.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the argument at hand. Instead, it was a general concept.

Originally posted by Oneness
I'm sorry, but is your main point not that my argumentative style is fallacious/improper?

I pointed out that debating incorrectly is fallacious/improper. Again, in direct response to your words to Digi.

"Beneath forum standards", you compared it to facebook and youtube comments IIRC.

"IIRC"? You realize that you can scroll up or open the thread in another tab to read and confirm stuff before you reply, right?

In any case, not seeing the virtue of debating fairly and properly in a discussion forum is pretty mind-boggling. Should discussion just be full of people passionately reasserting their viewpoints until they reach an agreement magically somehow?

What alternative to proper debating would you suggest?

I'm correctly asserting that you're attacking my method of my underlying argument, not the argument itself - which you claim to not understand, and which I restated repeatedly.

More like I didn't care to research myself and counter directly. Your argument already seems pretty thin, and we've had this discussion over Ockham's Razor before but you never took it to heart. I explicitly told you that I was taking exception to the idea that debating is unimportant to the topic at hand (or any topic here that doesn't fall into Off-Topic Sub-Forum).

Again, what's a viable alternative to fair debating policy?

The argument is that there is some underlying cohesion within the upper class that has control of the governments and their information through bribery, to answer your inquiry on the matter.

This is bordering on self-evident. This thread, in the form of your OP, asserted that numerology was able to make this even more evident, or that it had some hidden truth that illuminated us where common sense and watching something other than Fox News at night already indicated.

You backtracked over numerology, as you have backtracked over stuff before when you get called out on it, and now you're attacking the idea of debating fairly because you can't answer to the challenges presented to you.

Again, what is your viable alternative to non-fallacy-ridden debating standards?

As per Digi's disapproval, what I got was that my method is fine until I leave out pedantic elements like an anti-thesis.

Really? Every time I read his posts, all I can think of is he's pointing out to you that this is all "a stretch" and challenging you to think clearly. The issue here isn't the conclusion that elites control, etc.; it's that you've introduced numerology here as some kind of truth-finder, and you can't defend the claim.

As for the OP of the Atheist thread, he made the same mistake. I think I'm being treated unfairly here.

I'm not sure what you mean. You came out of left field and stated the following gems:

Originally posted by Oneness
He uses many terms specific to argumentation. Just because someone is a poor debater, or looses his cool in a debate (me) does not mean he's wrong. Expertise on a subject is more relevant.

Originally posted by Oneness
If one's only area of expertise is the subject of debate, than he'll never win an argument that isn't about debating.

You singled me out specifically because I am, I suppose, a debating elitist, and you hate elitists. I'm asking you again: what's your viable alternative? Intellectual ignorance in the form of proper critical thinking and debate? Protest Logic and Reasoning 101? Next time someone makes an axiomatic statement, refute it out of hand? At what point do you stop and realize that working against rational debate is a bad thing?

Originally posted by Oneness
And to that, I agree.

How can you agree with what I just said?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
and we've had this discussion over Ockham's Razor before but you never took it to heart. I explicitly told you that I was taking exception to the idea that debating is unimportant to the topic at hand (or any topic here that doesn't fall into Off-Topic Sub-Forum).

This is bordering on self-evident. This thread, in the form of your OP, asserted that numerology was able to make this even more evident, or that it had some hidden truth that illuminated us where common sense and watching something other than Fox News at night already indicated.

You backtracked over numerology, as you have backtracked over stuff before when you get called out on it, and now you're attacking the idea of debating fairly because you can't answer to the challenges presented to you.

Really? Every time I read his posts, all I can think of is he's pointing out to you that this is all "a stretch" and challenging you to think clearly. The issue here isn't the conclusion that elites control, etc.; it's that you've introduced numerology here as some kind of truth-finder, and you can't defend the claim.

I believe that's called a concession. I cannot prove the metaphysics of numerology, as it were, when the burden of proof is on me. Therefore, it's a concession to a fallacy which I suppose I must have failed to admit when called out on it. But I did say my overlooked argument was not dependent on it.

I'd hoped my superfluous arguments would not get this kind of attention because it was obviously irrational. The thread was getting out of hand because of the focus on it, then when Digi was telling me to concentrate on real, arguable points I was pleased. Then I was called out on the opening slip up to my response as opposed to the body of it. Then I made another mistake with my reply about not debating properly, I wouldn't have said that if he'd argued on the matter I'm actually genuinely interested in.

Originally posted by Oneness
The key to taking down the top 1% is information overload. Singularity level complexity within the monetary system would be untenable, even for the 1%. It's not chaos when something inhuman is running it, this thing is not concerned with ruling resources, just managing to the extent of sufficiency - something the human population would throw off. Humans are incapable of sufficiency, as Carl Sagan said, it will be our descendants who are not us, but a species very like us, with more of our strengths, and fewer of our weaknesses. 😉

If you take down the top of our socio economic demographic pyramid, the one that looks quite nice at the moment, what % do you see the new number being at the new top?

3 or 4 % perhaps?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If you take down the top of our socio economic demographic pyramid, the one that looks quite nice at the moment, what % do you see the new number being at the new top?

3 or 4 % perhaps?

Regards
DL

If Moore's Law proves correct and continuous, than hypothetically, if we're talking about a Type I Civilization (one that can harness 100% of the energy within the earth) with self-sufficient autonomous industry, nano-assembled products almost materializing from pure air via molecular reassembling, run by a bunch of transhumans (David 8; Data; shapeshifters), and nanoproccessing hyper-computers you're looking at 1% of the population having access to 1% of its resources from top to bottom. In other words, everyone can get what they want - and they want only the means to improve technological capacity and scientific understanding (self-actualization).

We either change, or

Originally posted by Oneness
It is factual that humans have reached a point of stagnation, and that there's no reason for economic turmoil in the modern world, except for the system being flawed and untenable.

There shouldn't be a reason for economic turmoil because, as empirically demonstrated in the Global Village Construction Set Experiment (this was a peer reviewed experiment, btw), modern civilization has already gained the sufficient productive resources to fulfill all basic human needs, even accounting for a growing population.......

Yet we've been unable to realize a post-scarcity system due to the supposed "realistic group conflict theory", that was demonstrated in the Robbers Cave Experiment.

So our system cannot move past scarcity because it was created by scarcity, basically.

Our system creates enough scarcity to fall to pieces in the attempt to remain stagnant. Humans physiologically cannot re-engineer the system at this point. If we exposed this organization (and somehow used the cognitive surplus to organize and successfully put up a coop) and their crimes, we've imprisoned, or killed via capitol punishment, a good portion of our population and will have maintained the only system we can manage without giving executive responsibility to a hypothetical Strong AI.

Originally posted by Oneness
If we're talking about a Type I Civilization (one that can harness 100% of the energy within the earth) with self-sufficient autonomous industry, nano-assembled products almost materializing from pure air via molecular reassembling, run by a bunch of transhumans (David 8; Data; shapeshifters), and nanoproccessing hyper-computers you're looking at 1% of the population having access to 1% of its resources from top to bottom. In other words, everyone can get what they want - and they want only the means to improve technological capacity and scientific understanding (self-actualization).

Eh. No. I was not talking about an imaginary type 1 civilization.

Nano assembly. Ya ya

Regards
DL

Option a, where we use our cognitive surplus (the global population's accumulative free-time) to organize and expose said organization, we basically release the nukes from their hibernation. In which case this same system might emerge withing centuries or millenniums. That's well and good, we can repeat that until the sun goes pop.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Eh. No. I was not talking about an imaginary type 1 civilization.

Nano assembly. Ya ya

Regards
DL

If things were different at the top, and capitalism had not imposed in the 70s, our economy would have boosted the globe, and yes the 1% would not have nearly as much of a gap between the middle class.

Originally posted by Oneness
Option a, where we use our cognitive surplus (the global population's accumulative free-time) to organize and expose said organization, we basically release the nukes from their hibernation. In which case this same system might emerge withing centuries or millenniums. That's well and good, we can repeat that until the sun goes pop.

If things were different at the top, and capitalism had not imposed in the 70s, our economy would have boosted the globe, and yes the 1% would not have nearly as much of a gap between the middle class.

When you put a number to my first question, then we can chat at the same level.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
When you put a number to my first question, then we can chat at the same level.

Regards
DL

The exact number is not really relevant, inequality would be lower just by implementing what we (in the U.S.) would have erroneously deemed in our paranoia as "communistic" business policies.

I understand now, I do not have all the facts. I'm going to take a break from debating on serious topics for a good long while.

Originally posted by Oneness
I understand now, I do not have all the facts. I'm going to take a break from debating on serious topics for a good long while.

May I make a suggestion. Only debate what you know, and don't take anything personally.