CreateDebate


Ramenclature's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Ramenclature's arguments, looking across every debate.

Whoopty-friggin-doo. All this proves is that you aren't the only pro-establishment scum weasel who happens to be native american (not that I believe that's actually what you are, because I've noticed that you seem to like saying things that aren't true).

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
1 point

as for what will replace it? I truly don't know. Thoughts?

The most likely answer is something similar to technocracy, because the more advanced a civilization becomes the less room there is for subjectivity, opinions and ideology in our decision making. In other words not only money, but also politics will be obsolete once we get to a certain level. This technical society is also almost definitely going to be one of two extremes, it will either be socialist or it will be fascist. This depends mainly on how retarded the public remains, because in the socialist version there would be a culture of reason which allows the general population to self-govern yet cooperate with the community as a whole. The fascist version is what will happen if humanity somehow survives it's own profound stupidity despite not socially and economically evolving enough to keep up with technology, and the current class system ends up being made worse rather than being done away with because the wealthy will become transhuman cyborg gods and enslave the human race and/or replace them with AI slaves.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
0 points

Agreed

Brilliant, now that that's settled what do you think will replace capitalism?

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
1 point

I can only imagine that you don't just work to survive, I imagine you have several electronics and devices for play and leisure as well.

You're missing the point, we live in capitalism whether we want to or not.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
2 points

But the other side is companies that provide incentive and reward for researchers and scientists to come up with better solution

Companies steal what scientists invent and use it to profit shareholders while those who do the thinking and the labour are "rewarded" with a fraction of what they themselves produce whereas the ones paying them did nothing but own the company.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
2 points

Again, it feels as if we are debating two sides of the same coin. You are arguing the negative aspect of it, I am arguing the positive.

The positive aspects are what can be improved upon with a better system and the negative aspects are what can be done away with using a new and better system. Both sides of the coin are telling you to look for something better, not to hold on to how things currently are or believe it is the only viable way for technology to progress.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
2 points

Yes but we can do better.

No kidding, we can provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet like I said. What is holding us back is fat, greedy capitalists.

We are limited by the technology of our time but with research and tenacity we can find better and more efficient solutions.

We are prevented from even using the technology we already could be using on top of the fact that we are using resources stupidly instead of investing in what matters because of the rotund beorgiosie fops who control our planet's resources.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
1 point

now with people putting money in the right direction, the cost of solar panels, tax breaks and benefits for having them (which encourages average consumers to justify the up front cost for installation or updates), and the study of it, has paved the way for corporations to spend the time and money to find more efficient means of production and efficiency.

We already have the technology to provide free and sustainable energy to the entire planet. What is holding us back is the money invested in fossil fuels and the profitability of expendable sources of energy. Not to mention that fossil fuels are now tied to the US monetary system itself (petrodollars) and the government will steal technology and hide it from the public if it threatens the current profit-based model or can be used for a military advantage.

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
1 point

I see it as a way to encourage and promote discovery with science, which also isn't wrong.

So you believe that money is necessary to create an incentive? Money is valued by humans because it gives them access to resources. It does create an incentive, but it isn't the only way to create an incentive, progress in and of itself is an incentive. If you add to science and technology, you make the world a better place to live in for yourself as well as everyone else. For example if I create a better vehicle, I have a better vehicle for myself, but I would also logically want to share that technology because it would improve the general functionality of society and thus effect the goods and services I receive. If you are logical enough, improving the world in and of itself is the most powerful incentive and if this was what culture conditioned people to think like it could replace the monetary incentive.

Nah, it's really the left waging war against the economy

If the socially constructed economy is not compatible with what is actually logical, productive or sustainable then we don't need it.

pseudoscientific magic climate

Reality doesn't care about your meaningless opinions. You throw around words like pseudoscientific meanwhile scientists who have actually done the science work are telling you something that contradicts your baseless opinion and you just stick your fingers in your ears and spew partisan group think.

ungratefully bitch about capitalism because they are too gay and stupid to understand how it created more abundance and technological progress.

abundance and technological progress lead to capitalism, not the other way around. Capitalism is just one step in a process of humanity adapting to differing material conditions.

Now we have rich people who in a sense are waging war against our very planet by funding the denial of science.

So do you now see why money is not necessary for science and technology, and it in fact creates conditions that hold them back? The material conditions that necessitated the invention of currency in and of itself are different from those that created capitalism, now that we are living in capitalism those conditions have changed again. It is not money or capitalism that lead to technological progress, it was a change in how we use resources (including technology) that lead to money and capitalism and will eventually force humanity to create new systems to adapt to different conditions. The monetary system is not technical or scientific, and the more technical society becomes the more scientific it must become. We can't afford to have an economy based on social constructs for much longer, because the more technologically advanced we become the more we need scientific and technical decision making that is aware of and concerned with the physical world rather than the world being run by interests that don't know or care about how our actions effect the physical world or how to address technical problems.

So show us an example that demonstrates your stupid point.

There you go sucking establishment dick again. It must feel good to be on the side of the state as a freedom loving capitalist, while you fight against us authoritarian anarcho-socialists.

One has to have money to have technology.

That is a fallacy. Is what you are saying universally true or is it only true in the context of a society in which you need money to have resources in general? Money is a man made concept, one that (I would certainly hope) will not be around forever and was not always here before.

You need scientists or a some form of education to understand or/and experiment with said technology, which also isn't free.

You are right in the sense that education is not free, nor is technology. What you fail to consider is that in tangible reality what things cost is resources, not social constructs. Have you ever considered the prospect of a post capitalist society or do you just assume it's the end all be all?

This is why most Scientists work to gain funding for their projects.

It's also why scientists lack funding while resources are used to build casinos, bail out rich bankers and shoot people for oil and opium while telling you it is to protect democracy. Money (and more specifically capitalism) makes for a society where a bunch of pompous, self serving, scientifically illiterate fucking microdick weasels get to make decisions about how resources are used because they have more social construct points than intelligent and/or benevolent people. For example, that is how you get people like Donald Trump and Thomas Edison deciding what type of energy we use instead of people like Nikola Tesla and people who know that climate change exists.

To encapsulate all that I just said I am going to provide you with one simple statement to consider: As our capacity to create abundance with science and technology increases, so too does our capacity to destroy everything because humanity allowed a bunch of rich ass holes to make decisions for their own gain instead of people who knew what the fuck they were doing or cared about the planet or anything on it other than themselves. Will the day come when decisions about how we use the earth's resources are based on reason and science or will we continue to let a bunch of capitalists give science a measly allowance while they waste everything for profit?

Let me guess, because the left wants equality for women but doesn't want to let you punch them in the face?

German Shepherd is my favorite breed, but I've never had one yet. I have had 3 dogs, a lab, a pit bull and a min pin chihuahua.

Isn't it weird how practically all white supremacist groups identify as right wing and support Trump?

Ramenclature(180) Clarified
2 points

The USA is a capitalist free market economy. Norway is a capitalist free market economy.

The US is not a free market economy, I'm not sure such a thing has ever existed. America is a plutocracy, Norway is a social democracy. In case you don't know, a plutocracy is when a handful of bankers, investors and CEOs have the government by the balls and rig everything for their benefit and social democracy is highly regulated capitalism with a lot of social welfare and public programs.

authoritarian communism

This is technically an oxymoron since communism itself has no state to begin with. If you mean early-stage Marxian socialism in which the communist party which should be in charge of gradually creating communism has degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, it's a valid point though.

Everything else you said is perfectly valid.

Hypocritical joke of a pseudo-leftist.

The most left wing person on the site other than myself is not a pseudo-leftist just because he is too left wing for center-leftists. The center-left who is barely left wing is not the authority on what constitutes a left winger.

So the RIGHT WINGER has it an experience of what I just type !!!!! I can contemplate philososophically the notion of a FOOL with a Hallow penis !!!!!! DOES the dildo store have an option for you ????????????????????

As a spokesperson for the left,

You are not a spokesperson for the left. Not that I disagree with you, I personally wouldn't mind seeing pedophiles euthanized directly through the penis hole. However, calling yourself a spokesperson for the left is not accurate. You are a spokesperson for a mainly centrist American political faction called the "Democrats" which are viewed as left wing in America because they are left wing relative to the Republicans. The name of the party is "Democrats" but they are technically Republicans, as in the government system they operate within and traditionally condone is a capitalist republic as opposed to actual left wing systems such as social democracy and socialism.

Outlaw has been here for years using the N word. Why don't you ban him next time you come here if you're a real moderator and not a sissy.

He's literally an open leftist.

I have never seen him say anything that indicates he is a leftist.

He probably thought it was you because of all the right wing spam but I could be wrong.

Right wingers think halloween is when you shine a flashlight down your urethra and say "look, I've got a hollow ween".


1 of 6 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]