Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 11:43:20 GMT -5
Then who made the extraordinary assumption that no money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 13, 2013 12:49:33 GMT -5
Then who made the extraordinary assumption that no money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services, ahinton? See posts #33, #40 & 61 (as well as #7, #11 & #23) for the answer to that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 12:57:19 GMT -5
ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 13, 2013 13:01:49 GMT -5
Yes, that's me - but what is it that you are asking me now?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 13:03:15 GMT -5
Withdraw the extraordinary assumption, ahinton!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 13, 2013 13:14:35 GMT -5
Withdraw the extraordinary assumption, ahinton! Well, you could have said so before (but didn't, which is why I asked)! I took the various observations - from a poster who evidently by his own written admission desires the wholesale abolition of "money" and "business" - as indicative of his belief that such things as public transportation systems and operations (and many other things as well) are - and indeed ought to be - perfectly capable in and of themselves of running without there having to be "money" and "business" as indispensable enabling factors. That's all. I will consider withdrawing what you nevertheless call (though not yet convincingly so to me) an "extraordinary assumption" if the poster concerned can in the meantime demonstrate that he does not after all take such a view and identifies and explains the view that he does instead take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 14:21:14 GMT -5
Refute ahinton's extraordinary assumption!
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 13, 2013 18:59:30 GMT -5
. . . the wholesale abolition of "money" and "business" . . . Member Hinton moots the wholesale abolition of money and business. Well! I must say I tend to agree with him. Children, kept persons, and those who vow poverty and live in communities do not require this "money" that is of such interest to business-men. Capitalists set themselves up in what are called "families" but after a certain time their young are ejected and required to fend for themselves in the world, in the hope and expectation that they will return with more "money." Is it not a cruel and evil practice? Mr. H.'s suggestion is certainly on the right lines. Let us think it through!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2013 3:32:01 GMT -5
Good morning, Gerard! I trust that all is well with you this weekend. If I may address your final question directly: "Is it not a cruel and evil practice?" Not really! Even if children stay at home with their parents all through their lives, their parents are still likely to die first and the children will then have to fend for themselves in the world, wherever they live. Although we generally live longer than we used to, it is not possible to cheat death, and it is arguably crueller for children to die before their parents anyway! Anyway, most children do not wish to live with their parents when they become adults themselves, so it is not necessarily the case that the young are ejected and required to fend for themselves in the world. The young leave of their own accord throughout the natural world. Reproduction is how life sustains itself! Money, of course, is a human invention. There is nothing either natural or God-given about the use of money. It is just a historical process, quite a complicated one, that has built up over time. Over that period, money has worked pretty well and has played a very important role in the triumphs of humanity - and also of course in its miseries. The British Museum - Gold coin of CroesusIn small societies, there is not really a great need for money, because you can generally trust your family, friends and neighbours to return any labour, food or goods in kind. The need for money, as we understand it, grows when you are dealing with strangers you may never see again and cannot necessarily trust. BBC - A History of the World in 100 objects - Gold coin of CroesusOf course, Gerard, if you do not deal with strangers, there may be no need for money at all! And there may be no need to fly anywhere! No Qantas; no problem! We have finally found the solution!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 14, 2013 3:46:29 GMT -5
. . . the wholesale abolition of "money" and "business" . . . Member Hinton moots the wholesale abolition of money and business. Well! I must say I tend to agree with him. Children, kept persons, and those who vow poverty and live in communities do not require this "money" that is of such interest to business-men. Capitalists set themselves up in what are called "families" but after a certain time their young are ejected and required to fend for themselves in the world, in the hope and expectation that they will return with more "money." Is it not a cruel and evil practice? Mr. H.'s suggestion is certainly on the right lines. Let us think it through! I "moot" nothing of the kind, as should be abundantly clear from previous posts in this thread! Another member here appears to do this, but the very notion is beyond absurd! Qantastically so, indeed! I must therefore correct you in what you falsely perceive to be your "agreement" with me if indeed you yourself believe in such an improbable notion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2013 7:19:51 GMT -5
Remember that there is meaning beyond absurdity, ahinton. Know that every deed counts, that every word is power. Never forget that you can still do your share to redeem the world in spite of all absurdities and frustrations and disappointments.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 14, 2013 10:15:44 GMT -5
Remember that there is meaning beyond absurdity, ahinton. Know that every deed counts, that every word is power. Never forget that you can still do your share to redeem the world in spite of all absurdities and frustrations and disappointments. Be that as it may or may not, when someone claims that I "moot" something that I so obviously do not, it not unnaturally behoves me to correct such a false impression as indeed I have done here on this occasion. Furthermore, even the possible prospect of "meaning beyond absurdity" of which you write here does not of itself undermine, let alone negate, the nature or extent of such absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 14, 2013 12:24:29 GMT -5
Be that as it may or may not, when someone claims that I "mott" something that I so obviously do not, it not unnaturally behoves me to correct such a false impression as indeed I have done here on this occasion. Don't know about "mott," but "moot" means "raise or bring forward (a point, question, subject, etc.) for discussion." To moot it one does not have to support it or even seriously propose it does one?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 14, 2013 13:43:11 GMT -5
Be that as it may or may not, when someone claims that I "mott" something that I so obviously do not, it not unnaturally behoves me to correct such a false impression as indeed I have done here on this occasion. Don't know about "mott," but "moot" means "raise or bring forward (a point, question, subject, etc.) for discussion." To moot it one does not have to support it or even seriously propose it does one? Apologies for the (now corrected) typo. However, as you are correct in pointing out that to moot means to raise or bring forward a question for discussion, it is not the case that I did so in this instance; all that I did, in fact, was to run with the idea which you had yourself mooted. Whilst you are also correct in noting that "to moot" does not necessarily mean "to support" or "to propose" a particular premise, I should perhaps point out in this instance (although I'd have thought there to be no need to do so!) that I most emphatically do not support or propose that of the abolition of money and/or business, if for no better reason than that it simply couldn't be achieved without either everyone's prior agreement and support (which it wouldn't get) or most of the world's commercially oriented activity (and this is most of that activity as a whole) grinding more or less to a halt, which is hardly a welcome prospect for anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 4:19:49 GMT -5
Good morning to you all, once again! To all those who survived the night, what a night it turned out to be. Congratulations to all! ' The Observer' leads this week with some editorial comment on China's moon landing: a game Chang'er. China's mission to the moon was driven by the need to demonstrate its power.Meanwhile, ' The Sunday Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment on enough airport delays: we need take-off now. Anybody searching for a killer fact on Britain’s infrastructure failings need look no further than the saga over London’s airport capacity. In more than half a century, through public inquiries, official reports, 18 possible sites for a new airport in the southeast of England and an apparently endless debate, not a single new full-length runway has been built. Writing for ' The Sunday Telegraph', Nathalie Thomas warns that Heathrow expansion 'would spell end of low-cost fares’. In terms of public transport services, Thief row could yet expand! Even if ahinton did not make the extraordinary assumption here in ' The Third' that no money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services, it seems obvious enough that a huge investment needs to be made in airports if Qantas and other commercial airlines are to continue to fly into London over the course of the twenty-first century. How could such investment be funded? Well, the obvious solution is that Gerard should buy a ticket, which could prove to be expensive! As for kleines c, kleines c recognises that buying a ticket will not ultimately pay for public transport services! Public transport is, by definition, a collective rather than an individual service. The real problem with Qantas is that its cost structure now makes it uncompetitive, which means that passengers will choose cheaper alternatives! Qantas will go bust! Even if Qantas flies kleines c to Perth today for free, it is too late! England has lost the Ashes! BBC Sport - Cricket - Ashes LiveOf course, with more than seven billion people on Earth, it is likely that it is more than simply cricket balls which will fly beyond the Waca! In the twenty-first century, people, too, will fly as never before, perhaps even beyond the Moon! Stephen Hawking once wrote that he did not think the human race would survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. Like Stephen, I am an optimist, ahinton. We will reach out to the stars!
|
|