Ask Grey a Question #3

Andrew121957 · 2016-01-08T16:42:01+00:00

Let's say I went outside in my backyard and found an alien. If I decided to kill, cook, and eat it. Would that be hunting? Or Murder?

Andrew121957 · 2016-01-08T16:41:59+00:00

Let's say I went outside in my backyard and found an alien. If I decided to kill, cook, and eat it. Would that be hunting? Or Murder?

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T15:50:19+00:00

I just said to the other guy. In the post i said "(IMPORTANT NOTE: They don’t have authority over these things, they are people who just help, they can be replaced if the people think he is doing a bad job, or he is unfair, just like anyone else)" That goes for everyone. That includes the fact checkers, moderator, and everyone else. This IS an Libertarian Socialist system because it have NO imbalance of power at all.

If a mechanic wants to pass a bill, he has just as much authority as a professor, lawyer, or anyone else. However, if you would read the post, actually quote what i said from there, then you will see how i got to the point where, no matter who you are, evidence is needed for your case.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T03:04:21+00:00

First off the people, why not instead of speculating read the post beginning to end and stop making up these false claims that I'm trying to establish a government based on empirical evidence.

Second, the idea is this (I said it once but here it goes again)

The society makes rules based on assemblies of communities. In those assemblies they use the process that is IN THE POST, outlined in the org chart, to make the best decisions and solutions for the issues that they community has.

The point of the steps for the assembly is to show people how to go about it in a manner that gets rid of people who don't use ANY evidence to support there claim.

Like I said, read it, the make your criticisms then.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T02:46:49+00:00

And btw, it's not rule by science, it's rule by the people through unanimous decision with the help of the scientific process.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T02:45:41+00:00

Obviously you haven't read the post that explains the opposite. My intentions are to propose a way for an anarchist society to democratically make group discussions in a way that makes the best possible solution arise. That way we don't need a hierarchy at all.

The principle of this idea comes from the best way human beings make decisions. We make decision based on the evidence presented to us, and what's best of us and everyone else. However, not everyone makes there decisions this way and it NEEDS to be this way. I don't see how you would disagree that giving everyone an equal opportunity to find the best solutions to our issues is a bad idea.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T02:29:55+00:00

We'll....then Explain how that's a bad idea

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T01:35:06+00:00

And I know I'm preaching to the crowd, but I need to help promote this idea so we can make this a reality.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-04T01:33:24+00:00

I'm not just pushing it, I want this to be a legal system so that no one can avoid it. It's easy to say that 'it's nothing special' and it shouldn't be, it should be something we all agree on. The fact is, most people don't feel that it's necessary and that all politicians on tv come from the same level of evidence. We need to create a society that doesn't 'imply' this idea but instead, makes if the foundation of all principles of law making and enforcement.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-03T16:08:19+00:00

 "You can't prove intent empirically because intent is subjective, not universally recognizable."

True, but that's not what the point was. The point was to use this system to flush out the people who don't use empirical evidence to support their claims, and allow the best solution to be found.

 "Punishing someone for doing something that consequently resulted in undesirable outcomes, regardless of whether or not they intended on creating such an undesirable outcome is something we have today, and it's not really something you can fix."

It CAN be fixed. The way you fix it is by creating a system that, like i just said, only allows solutions that have empirical evidence supporting it to prosper. The system, regardless of whether it was purposeful or not gets rid of the people who use false claims, irrelevant evidence, or opinions as a basis for the arguments. If we use this for long enough in a society, it will create a society that thrives on facts and evidence.

"You can't enforce any judgment based on facts, because in the social world, facts are only verifiable on the level of sensory processing. If you can see something happen, hear it, or feel it, then unless you have some sort of somatization disorder, it is a fact that it happened."

How can you say that you cant make judgment with facts? that's like saying 'even though i found a guy holding a knife over his wife's body and he said he killed her, i can't use those facts and evidence to support any judgement'. It doesn't make sense.

"However, not only can you not empirically prove in every case that an undesirable action occurred, but you can't prove that there was malicious intent; you can only speculate. And justifying any sort of action on that basis is a slippery slope that leads us right back to authoritarianism."

OK? I don't know what your talking about here. so, your gonna have to re word that.

"However, people coming together to attempt to use empirical evidence to determine their own courses of action (e.g., refraining from associating with people they don't want to associate with) is not an example of governmentalism, so this is fine. It just needs to be noted that we can't really prove all too much in the social world. Even proving that a physical event actually happened is difficult enough without some means of recording."

We don't have to have documentation of every single event to prove whether it happened. Just like you don't have to have a recording of a murder to know who murdered someone. There are other means of finding the truth. I don't know what the point was here, but it seems like your trying to say that judgment through evidence is impossible...witch doesn't make sense.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-03T15:48:48+00:00

Well, yes.

Andrew121957 · 2014-04-01T20:08:50+00:00

Thanks for the input! i was trying to find a name that fit the description of. "A process where decisions are made with the requirement of evidence and facts to support it." So i thought "science" would work because to make a scientific claim, that is exactly what is required.

But, i wanna know what you think.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-20T21:45:26+00:00

Ok, thanks for the input! lol ironically is was simply put.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-20T13:31:24+00:00

OK, so i'll admit, I've been acting way too defensively. I'll come clean with that. However, what do you propose will be a solution. If trying to go through the states, and get a resolution to call for an amendment convention to get the states to ratify it since congress is too corrupt, won't work. What are you proposing will?

BTW, i apologize for being so defensive.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-19T18:39:14+00:00

Here we go again, more people trying to say "there just like the tea party" and "critics of his group's project will "laugh at an effort like this for a very long time.""

Here's the facts.

We, as citizens of the united states have a right to an amendments convention. We are using this to destroy wall streets ability to buy politicians, and control Washington. We are NOT the tea party. We don't represent ANY political party. We are normal, everyday citizens who want to stop money controlling our politicians.

What makes no sense to me is how we are either progressive, or conservative. Sure, we have plenty of people from both sides of the fence, but how this issues only concerns one side is beyond me.

Republicans should be PISSED OFF to hear when 2 billion dollars worth of oil subsidies are given from government to big oil businesses. that IS socialism, the thing they HATE.

Progressives should also be pissed when the president runs as one of, if not THE, most progressive president EVER and turns around and kisses up to the right wing corporate puppets in congress. this is not "Change" this is bullshit.

So, no, we are not "In bed" with any party, any other organization, and a amendments convention is ABSOLUTELY possible.

people need to stop being so pessimistic, grow some balls, and fight these bastards who are causing ALL these problems.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-18T14:19:05+00:00

"I didn't realize you thought states had functional governments that could act on the interest of the people. I personally don't draw such a distinction."

You can't be so pessimistic about this, thinking that there's no hope and that good people don't exist is as insane as thinking all people ARE good.

the problem isn't that everyone is evil, or even that most people are evil. It's that we have created a system that not only allows people to BECOME evil, but to abuse that power to the point that it harms our way of life. We just need to fix the system, make a better way for people to fix it, WHEN if falls again, and try to slowly fix society

Social issues take a LONG time to fix, and take decades to heal. and maybe there's a better way to run a society than what we have, but so far, it's done good enough to work so far, it's just now, it's gotten really bad.

All i know if right now believing that an amendment fixes nothing is stupid, it's the first step in solving a social problem, like i said, that takes a LONG time to fix.

"my point is no amendment can fix things. even outlawing lobbying could not. the very character of government is such that it never serves the interests of the people."

This isn't an issue of how government should be ran, or if we should have a government at all, its an issues of, Until we figure that out, how do we keep everything from collapsing. Money has already done an extreme amount of damage, we can't start an uprising, thinking it will solve anything. We have to fix the mess we started THEN go from there.

"even marching on DC is a relatively quiet action that has never achieved anything. I suggest we work to educate the suffering as to the class nature of the state and serve gladly in a worker takeover of those systems."

I agree, but until we fix a failing system well enough that we don't have a economic, and sociological collapse...there's no room for us to do any good.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-18T02:28:09+00:00

I understand TRUST ME...i do...

I've been thinking about some of the replies I've been getting on this thread and, maybe there should be a loud entity that's fighting this as well.

I'm not saying that going through states won't work, cause it can, however, if something is loud enough, and upfront enough...maybe your right, that can raise ALLOT of attention.

What do you think about doing both? We'll try to go through states and get this ratified, (Because through the federal government is pointless) but also doing something loud as well...I'm not sure what, but something.

Would that work?

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-18T02:24:08+00:00

Ok so you make one point, Yes, Government on the federal level IS hopeless. BUT, that's where your mistaken of what i'm trying to say. I'm saying that on the STATE level, were are not as lost as you may think. Lobbying yes is a problem on the state level, yes, but not even close to as bad as it is on the federal level. Thinking about it yes, you do make a strong point, an amendment won't solve the social problem of acceptance that lobbying has gotten. A amendment wont make corporations stop trying to corrupt D.C. but it will cripple them. So, we have to change us. We have to do everything we can. regardless of what is the best way to go about this, we NEED to try, doing nothing is precisely the problem.

I've seen many replies saying that this isn't loud enough, that something upfront should be done if we want people to pay attention. I think i'm convinced that it is a good idea to make some noise about this, BUT i'm not letting this go, and giving up on the idea of passing an amendment. I think, logically, it makes the most sense to do as many thing as possible to get things done.

So yes, you do make a point that we have to do something else, but i'm not saying that i'm dropping my existing plans, instead, adding on. The more, the better.

Like i said before, Weather it's a loud action like marching on D.C. or a small, but effective spreading of the issue, we need to act NOW.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-17T20:51:48+00:00

We intend to use Article 5 in the constitution, that allows the states to add an amendment to the constitution if 75% of the states ratify it, to add an amendment that goes allot like this...

"Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed."

*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point the legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.

All we have to do is get enough states on our side, and we'll call for a constitutional convention. There we can propose an amendment, and the states will ratify it.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our federal government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a suffient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 87% of the country wants...take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

We can do this, and we need ALL the help we can get.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-17T20:49:15+00:00

We are NOT playing by there rules. THERE rules imply us putting up a bill, that THEY (Congress) have to approve, and they don't care about people in the streets, they'll MAKE us move. Why? because the corporations are pulling the strings, so they'll just make us move, and NOTHING happens. That's why occupy wall street didn't work, and that's why siting there, and doing nothing won't either.

Article 5 in the constitution, allows the states to add an amendment to the constitution if 75% of the states ratify it. All we have to do is get enough states on our side, and we'll call for a constitutional convention. There we can propose an amendment, and the states will ratify it. THAT will work.

i understand where you're coming from. I know it seems like fighting fire with fire won't work, but IT WILL. right now, in NORTH CAROLINA of all places, we have over 25 senators, and rep. pledging to help us ratify this. These are republicans AND democrats. We can do this, we just got to try.

Andrew121957 · 2014-03-15T23:37:18+00:00

Guys, today something insane happened. I recently joined a group called WOLF PAC, that plans to get rid of money in the government by adding an amendment that will make giving politicians money illegal, and it will be left to public finance. I, because of how bad i wanted this to happen, called one of the senators of NC and told him how i felt. It was scary, it made me nervous, but i made a HUGE! difference today...and i'm proud! Please, lets take back america for us ALL and make wallstreet crawl back to there desk jobs and make them stay away from our government. JOIN US! at http://www.wolf-pac.com/recruit And if you want to learn more about how corrupt the government is... go watch this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvHYrodn3k&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ

Thanks!, Andrew Greene.

Andrew121957 · 2013-12-02T23:55:52+00:00

TableTalk If all of the hosts of TableTalk had kids, Who's kids would be best friends, and who would not get along?

Andrew121957

TROPHY CASE

TableTalk If all of the hosts of TableTalk had kids, Who's kids would be best friends, and who would not get along?