I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[Kair]

I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are an animal, as is every other human being. Hundreds of years of science has proved that.

So, fortunately, even your 'enlightened' communism will never happen.

1) If we are all animals, all morality and thought is void. Believing you are an animal turns you into an animal. Trying hard enough to be a Human turns you into a Human. We distinguish between sentient and non-sentient for a reason.

2) The suggested impotence of Humanity is not fortunate. I know you are influenced by popular opinion to say such things, but I still know I must correct you on it in case it might help.

Being an animal and being nonsentient are not the same things. "Animal" is a classification that means "we aren't plants or rocks." We are "sentient" because we are capable of forming high-level brain functions like complex emotions, logic, and abstract thought, not because we aren't "animals."
After reading your definition of communism, I'm afraid to say that, without significant artificial modification of human behavior (like wide-spread lobotomy), such a social construct will never come to pass (and, in my humble opinion, good riddance). Your argument hinges around the concept of "enlightenment," which you say means treating humans as peers and all working toward a common goal. You also point out that this is not a hivemind.

This is incorrect.

The classic definition of hive mind is a society/group in which all members work toward a common ideal with no competition, variation, or individuality, for the good of "the whole." Human behavior is distinctly anathema to this construct (and, by your own definition, to Communism) because, while we do form societies, we are also individuals within a group. Each person follows his or her own goals, needs, desires, and fears, which (almost invariably) may work against another person's goals, needs, etc. This means we are a fractious, conflict-prone species, but it also means that we will continue to advance as individuals and as a people. Thankfully, there are no hiveminds in existence today (with the possible exception of North Korea). Your "enlightenment" seems to be a destruction of the "self" in humanity, tying all individuals into a cohesive whole while destroying their individuality (at the risk of being sensationalist, you want us to become the Borg). And while the end of conflict may be a nice dream to reach for, the price that you're asking is far too high. I'll pass and keep being, as you put it, an "animal."

OT: I can honestly say I'm not interested in seeing what Michael Moore has to say because, while he was successful once, he's let that fame and popularity go to his head and fuel his own personal delusions. While he may have a point, I'm not going to waste my time sifting through his latest tangle of propaganda, shock-hunting, and inconsistencies to find that little nugget of truth. I'd rather use my own brain and deal with issues I can perceive and combat, instead of succumbing to the sensationalism and reactionary fear/outrage that he craves.

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse. Just like people 100 years before you made your life worse by not standing up to the church.

The Classical Animal/Human view is considered to be obsolete and outdated.

Hive mind and collective mind are the same thing; both are used to describe a single ruling mind controlling several semi-autonomous physical entities. It'd be nice to find a "better" word, but I think this still fits what you're trying to describe.

I was being admittedly sensationalist when I used wide-spread lobotomy as an example, but it does illustrate my point. To get the sort of selfless dedication to a greater cause that you champion, you have to enact a wide-reaching and extensive alteration of the basic fundamentals of human nature to create the effect you want. Perhaps this view I've taken is because you haven't really explained what your "Enlightenment" means, what such a thought structure is, or how to gain such a status.

The big problem with your argument about people inventing reasons not to become Communist (aside from the fact that Communism is like quantum physics; it only works on a very small scale) is that what you're talking about isn't getting one or two people to "get the mail" or "take out the trash," it's getting an entire nation of millions of people - or an entire SPECIES of BILLIONS - to agree. Have you ever tried to get six people in a car to agree on where to get lunch? Much less even a small town to agree on anything without hours/days of argument, counterargument, and the occasional drunken fistfight. All in all, it swings back around to my "changing human nature" point earlier.

The collective mind was everything I didn't mean to imply. That is why I tried so firmly remove this idea of "hivemind" from people's imagination of a cooperative society.

You say you can not change human nature. 2000 years ago, slavery was abundant in most parts of the world. This ended 300 years ago, and is now only found in very small amounts. Do not lecture me in the staticity of the human species.
We make advances every century, with people like you and millions of others objecting to it all the time. Two thousand years from now or less, people will see your words and those of others who oppose the Humanists as stubborn bias in favour of the status quo, just like we see the delay tactics of the Caribbean plantation owners.

 

[MorganL4]

Do admit its mostly for shock value, but some of the stuff he lets you know is pretty messed up.

Do companies really take out life insurance on their own employees?

Companies certainly have life insurance for very valuable employees. If a CFO or Actuary dies, the business could be significantly hampered for a lengthy period of time. I've heard of "important employee" life insurance up to 1.5 million. I don't see what's wrong with that.

You obviously have not seen the film.... The example that he is referring to is Walmart taking out life insurance on store employees ( a cashier if I remember correctly)

 

[Mr.Numbers]

The problem is Moore needs to work with extremism just to get his point across If your goal is to get people to aim for point X, your best bet is to aim off further for point Y, and have people compromise with point X, as opposed to failing to hit point X altogether when people shrug off all the information you have when it's displayed completely factually.

 

[Silenttalker22]

If Kair weren't so determined, I'd say he's a troll. I'm barely paraphrasing his one comment to Atmos when he said, "You assume your argument more valid simply because it's based on the most evidence."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

 

[Silenttalker22]

And by the way "free thinker", if you knew these people weren't enlightned, you would know that enlightenment can't come from someone else and wouldn't be trying to teach it. Your impulse to counter arguments is based on how much you want your point to be taken as correct. That's a competitive or a defensive instinct. An... animal instinct.

Topic turned from Moron Moore to something far more engaging though. Loving the perspectives. This kept me up much later than I'd planned.

 

[Gearran]

I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are an animal, as is every other human being. Hundreds of years of science has proved that.

So, fortunately, even your 'enlightened' communism will never happen.

1) If we are all animals, all morality and thought is void. Believing you are an animal turns you into an animal. Trying hard enough to be a Human turns you into a Human. We distinguish between sentient and non-sentient for a reason.

2) The suggested impotence of Humanity is not fortunate. I know you are influenced by popular opinion to say such things, but I still know I must correct you on it in case it might help.

Being an animal and being nonsentient are not the same things. "Animal" is a classification that means "we aren't plants or rocks." We are "sentient" because we are capable of forming high-level brain functions like complex emotions, logic, and abstract thought, not because we aren't "animals."
After reading your definition of communism, I'm afraid to say that, without significant artificial modification of human behavior (like wide-spread lobotomy), such a social construct will never come to pass (and, in my humble opinion, good riddance). Your argument hinges around the concept of "enlightenment," which you say means treating humans as peers and all working toward a common goal. You also point out that this is not a hivemind.

This is incorrect.

The classic definition of hive mind is a society/group in which all members work toward a common ideal with no competition, variation, or individuality, for the good of "the whole." Human behavior is distinctly anathema to this construct (and, by your own definition, to Communism) because, while we do form societies, we are also individuals within a group. Each person follows his or her own goals, needs, desires, and fears, which (almost invariably) may work against another person's goals, needs, etc. This means we are a fractious, conflict-prone species, but it also means that we will continue to advance as individuals and as a people. Thankfully, there are no hiveminds in existence today (with the possible exception of North Korea). Your "enlightenment" seems to be a destruction of the "self" in humanity, tying all individuals into a cohesive whole while destroying their individuality (at the risk of being sensationalist, you want us to become the Borg). And while the end of conflict may be a nice dream to reach for, the price that you're asking is far too high. I'll pass and keep being, as you put it, an "animal."

OT: I can honestly say I'm not interested in seeing what Michael Moore has to say because, while he was successful once, he's let that fame and popularity go to his head and fuel his own personal delusions. While he may have a point, I'm not going to waste my time sifting through his latest tangle of propaganda, shock-hunting, and inconsistencies to find that little nugget of truth. I'd rather use my own brain and deal with issues I can perceive and combat, instead of succumbing to the sensationalism and reactionary fear/outrage that he craves.

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse. Just like people 100 years before you made your life worse by not standing up to the church.

The Classical Animal/Human view is considered to be obsolete and outdated.

Hive mind and collective mind are the same thing; both are used to describe a single ruling mind controlling several semi-autonomous physical entities. It'd be nice to find a "better" word, but I think this still fits what you're trying to describe.

I was being admittedly sensationalist when I used wide-spread lobotomy as an example, but it does illustrate my point. To get the sort of selfless dedication to a greater cause that you champion, you have to enact a wide-reaching and extensive alteration of the basic fundamentals of human nature to create the effect you want. Perhaps this view I've taken is because you haven't really explained what your "Enlightenment" means, what such a thought structure is, or how to gain such a status.

The big problem with your argument about people inventing reasons not to become Communist (aside from the fact that Communism is like quantum physics; it only works on a very small scale) is that what you're talking about isn't getting one or two people to "get the mail" or "take out the trash," it's getting an entire nation of millions of people - or an entire SPECIES of BILLIONS - to agree. Have you ever tried to get six people in a car to agree on where to get lunch? Much less even a small town to agree on anything without hours/days of argument, counterargument, and the occasional drunken fistfight. All in all, it swings back around to my "changing human nature" point earlier.

The collective mind was everything I didn't mean to imply. That is why I tried so firmly remove this idea of "hivemind" from people's imagination of a cooperative society.

You say you can not change human nature. 2000 years ago, slavery was abundant in most parts of the world. This ended 300 years ago, and is now only found in very small amounts. Do not lecture me in the staticity of the human species.
We make advances every century, with people like you and millions of others objecting to it all the time. Two thousand years from now or less, people will see your words and those of others who oppose the Humanists as stubborn bias in favour of the status quo, just like we see the delay tactics of the Caribbean plantation owners.

Slavery is not a part of human nature. Basic human nature is to account for your needs, and then your wants. Slavery was a social construct of the time - based around the perceived inferiority of another race of people and with no actual basis in 'nature,' human or otherwise - and not implanted in the "nature" of humanity. Neither is such things as religious, social or economic bigotry (to head off that particular argument). While humans are capable of moving in groups, it is always temporary. At the end of the day, the human thinks of himself as an individual.

I notice that you didn't actually answer my request to explain your enlightenment (something that, at the risk of sounding somewhat smug, I'm not surprised about in the least), instead choosing to attack my statements. I repeat my request: Please explain about your enlightenment.

At the end of the day, I'd rather be Terran than Zerg.