Peter Joseph on what we advocate (part 1)

Peter Joseph talks about what the Zeitgeist Movement advocates and why.

Part 1 of 3

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Peter
• Joseph
• the
• zeitgeist
• movement
• venus
• project
• technology
• science
• education
• monetary
• system
• Nikola
• Tesla

[dreadyloxx]

@TZMOfficialChannel: Great job again, thanks.

So many souls awakening, can you feel it too?

Peace&Love to all

[wamplersdl]

@ Elzon1 I encourage you to become more familiar with the tenants of the movement. You seem to lack a clear understanding of why it is that we advocate such things as the abolishment of money and property. In brief, it is not for the purpose of changing the world by the means of abolishment. Rather the opposite, we seek to change the world such that money and property are obsolete ideas. If you don't understand this, then that is why I encourage you to become better informed. I hope that you do

[TheDarkFenix]

4 bankers didn't like this.

[a207a1]

So, when are we going to stop using money? Does it need to be a gradual change? If so why? What would you say we do, use barter until the time comes when we can truly get away from the money based world? Use time banks? I would like to hear about action being taken. As soon as you get ready to DO something, give me a call.

[freedeanna]

@evilnomad111 Well that was fun. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then. Sorry I got a bit personal there for a while. I'm going to bow out of this before I get any worse. Cheers.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

"And the efficiency of automation doesn't get rid of waste." Wrong; the utilization of sustainable and long lasting resources gets rid of waste with the combination of recycling and renewability and bio degradability. So no, an increase of production has nothing to do with waste, the quality of the product does. That is the Ad Hoc fallacy you are asserting. Just because automation happens before waste doesn't mean automation is the cause of waste, as I just proven to you.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

And I know I am not infallible. Same goes for you. We can all arrive at decisions through collaborative processes and have machines carry out the work. You are freeing humanity from unnecessary labor. You literally think that they will make all of the decisions for us? Who knows, with the advancement of technology, we might achieve that one day.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

"All of the waste we make from production is from the direct fact of customers unable to purchase the means of higher quality resources." No, this is a fact. Not everybody can afford a rollex watch or a hybrid car. They are left with buying cheaper products that lead to unnecessary waste. That is why dollar stores exist and cheap food that is dangerous to your health. That isn't an opinion, thats a deduction, unless you have proof that everybody can afford high quality products.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

Which I thought was obsurd.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

and thanks for the sarcasm. I implore you to look up Straw Man. So you dismiss my explanation based on a spelling error? Wow.

And you are suggesting another logical fallacy; Anecdotal fallacy. It doesn't matter what YOU thought the possibility was. My assertion was other COUNTRIES looking into the possibility. Your anecdote holds no merit or refutiation to nations arriving at this critical decision. You are also implying that a nation is inferior to the power of your brain.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

If you want a direct example, try mispelling a word in the google search engine. It isn't going to leave you with your error.

Are you literally trying to make me repeat myself? Abundance exists, however with our paralyzing monetary system, it is impossible to impliment change and growth. And population growth is a factor, that is why you educate people into making these decisions. Of course there is going to be critical mass.

[evilnomad111]

@freedeanna

Free, I never said that the system will be absoloutly perfect. There will be flaws. So you know a machine that has made mistakes when it comes to imputing numerical information or environmental information? I know affirming the consequent isn't evidence, however it does stress my point that they can process quantities of information faster than humans. It is proven too that machine production is highly more efficient than human production, so I don't see how your argument stands.