Mythruna

BitTorrent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol))

This was intended to be a reply to this (http://mythruna.com/forum/index.php?topic=1019.15) topic but I realized at this point (as you can see below) I would have been taking the entire topic waaaaaaaayyyy off topic. Therefore I chose to create a new topic that would address my need to respond to the other....responses, in regard to the following.

I'm not going to quote people specifically as this is meant to address the full scope of the issue.

A lot of people assume BitTorrent programs are all used for piracy which is not the case. Many of these same people also think that BitTorrent trackers also share the brunt of the blame, which is also not the case.

People drink and drive. Does that mean we should outlaw certain kinds of vehicles based on how likely it is that someone will drink and drive during its operation? Uhh, well that doesn't even make sense. Then why outlaw certain kinds of sites because they may be more prone to being used illegally than others? This will always be the case.

Terrorists are most likely to attack targets which are heavily populated. So....should our government then issue a law stating that any sizable group over a predetermined limit shall be disbanded or arrested and tried? Doesn't really make sense either, does it. This isn't thinking big, it's thinking small. It's ineffective, stupid, and it doesn't attempt to solve or create long term working solutions toward preventing these issues from arising repeatedly in the future. It's the same thing with airport security but that's another topic of discussion.

The point is to create long term working solutions to problems. But that takes time, money, effort, and requires you to give a damn.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't want to wait while law enforcement sift through each user IP to see who is violating and who is not. These two organizations would rather mass categorize all trackers and all BitTorrent protocol programs as copyright infringers. They have already attempted to do so and failed. Need I repeat myself; this is stupid, lazy, and ineffective if you also gauge effectiveness by what is right or wrong.

Both BitTorrent protocol and tracker sites can be used as legitimately or illegitimately as the owner(s) and/or user base choose. Are these two mediums of file sharing used in illegal ways? Yes. Does that mean we should be lazy and shut them all down, terminating their full potential and punishing users who legally operate such software and tracker sites? I think not. But the MPAA and RIAA don't want to be selective, they don't care. They just want their money! And then some.

Of most legal cases I've reviewed they don't just want the defendant to pay lawyer fees, court costs, and a reasonable sum (based on the value of downloaded material and to the extent it was shared). They want blood money. In the first case against file sharing, Capitol v. Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas), the RIAA was willing to settle initially for $5,000 USD in conjunction with a cease and desist letter. Defendant Thomas refused the settlement offer. As far as what the article provides there seems to be no way to determine how the RIAA calculated or came up with the $5,000 USD as recompense. When Thomas refused the initial settlement offer it was upped to 222,000 USD, then 1.92 million ($80,000 per song of 24 songs which were sought as damages).

Now in civil cases it is up to the jury to decide what amount is fair for the defendant to pay the plaintiff if they are found guilty. Let's say each of the 24 songs were $2 USD each (which is about $1 USD over what most songs on i-Tunes are so I am over estimating). That would amount to a total cost of $48 USD. That's under $300 USD which means it is a misdemeanor theft, not a felony. Now let's say they included the other peers she uploaded the song to, if she did. The chances that were to exceed $300 USD are low in my opinion because she would have had to re-up the same 24 songs more than 5 times for each song. Being that their residence wasn't in the city, the chances of them having fast internet transfer speeds is probably pretty low.

You could also say, if you read the article, that the plaintiff's said something to the effect of, "We are aware of 1,702 songs you shared online but we only want to sue you for 24 of them." Say what? Well if we were then to consider what I said in the above paragraph, why are they suing for such insane amounts of money? If they wanted to sue for that much why didn't they just sue for all 1,702 songs she allegedly shared?

Furthermore the defendant, Thomas, stated she was not aware of the downloads. She submitted the hard drive in question for review.


From this, you could determine that the jurors already appear biased, thus a mistrial should be called. A biased jury is not a fair jury. The main key of evidence was not presented at trial, WHAT? Why? The burden of proof in a civil case has to be a preponderance of the evidence, 51 percent sure. If the proof was non existent then how could the jury come to a conclusion other than not guilty?

In my opinion the MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of stuck up twats twiddling their thumbs coming up with new ways to control mass media so the 0's in their bank accounts and lobbyist power continue to grow to irrevocable limits. These are the same people responsible for saying good bye to free unregulated internet, or trying to; SOPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) & PIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act).

The english Wikipedia site also showed up for protest which can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Wikipedia_Blackout_Screen.jpg

Cary Sherman is an American lawyer and lobbyist, CEO of RIAA. Sherman is a smart douche, working for other smart douches, figuring out new ways to douche the system. Sherman is a strong advocate of SOPA & PIPA.


This man has corporate elite written all over his background, more than I mentioned here. He was grown from a seed within the RIAA and now sits at its head, seething at the mouth. This man is one of many who were born into these once useful organizations who constantly seek the attention of and lobby our government to make changes which benefit the few and damage the masses.

Make no mistake. They now seek to protect their investments, their profits. Well, their members are their profits.


It is not only unfair to punish the group for the actions of individuals, it's down right lazy (reference to SOPA & PIPA but also speaking generally). But society has been doing this for a long time. Punish and scorn the few and drown out the minority. It's easy to see the world in black and white because it takes less effort. But does that mean the world is black and white? Absolutely not, it's full of color....which is why we should treat each other the same way we view nature. Although I will say if nature could be represented by a living demographic of people it would be one massive horror movie. Considering that we treat nature like sh*t. But that's why I said the way we 'view' nature, not 'treat' nature. :P

I rest my case.

P.S. - If you have anything you want to add, feel free. Also, I hope I did not offend anyone. It was simply my goal to inform the best I could and cite sources which could be checked for integrity.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_(protocol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act

For those in the audience that are not United Statesians, you can skip this but everyone else interesting in why copyright is screwed up (and how it's a bigger problem) should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc

It's long but worth it.  If you only have a chance to watch a few minutes of it then maybe skip ahead to 6 minutes and watch past the "no brainer" part.

yea i agree with your general idea your putting out. in my country- New Zealand torrenting is banned, at first the ip provider would dob everyone who still did it in and they would have to pay 50 dollars for there first offence if they do it 3 times they get there ip blocked and cant use internet anymore but the internet providers are fed up with it and cant be bothered sending in everyone's ip since people keep on doing it. so over all banning torrenting has failed here and we only have 4 million people nothing huge and our providers have given up on stopping people torrenting so what im getting at is a few people will always be penilised but over all there never going to suceded in stopping us. i have over 3000 songs - 22gb - 10 days strait of music and i have payed for around 200 songs outa all of that and i haven't been penilised so to me ill keep downloading music until someone trys stop me hehe

That's an awesome video. It's going in my media bank for future reference and sharing. I'm only 25 minutes into it so far but I will have to continue it later.

Wow, that left me thinking, Sern.

Really interesting topic! It's good when someone takes their time to share. I never would have tought that my actions could have these kinds of reactions lol -_-

Cheers

I completely and totally agree. But i highly doubt most people will, as you put it "give a damn" until its too late.

i am definitely going to keep that video in my favorites for future reference.

I've followed Lessig for some time now.  When he first abandoned direct copyright activism in favor of solving what he saw as the real problem his message was much more toned done.  He'd show examples and point to the fact that there was a potential conflict of interest... so it didn't matter if there actually _was_ corruption.  The appearance was enough to show the system was broken.

As the years have gone by and evidence has mounted in his arguments favor, his message is much more direct and depressing.  It's clear that there is no longer just the appearance of corruption but actual corruption.  The examples are insanely compelling.  And the system is not going to vote to tear itself down.

Thanks. My goal was simply to provide an informative topic with references. Whenever I see misconceptions or false statements I suddenly feel the need to provide information to the contrary. I think that when any of us see something that is wrong, physically or verbally passed on, it is up to us to attempt to rectify it.

But you have to be careful how you do it. At times past, I've made an attempt to correct someone on something (99% of the time I look things up before opening my mouth to be sure I know what I'm talking about so I don't spread further false statements) and when I go to look up the info to provide in my 'correction' I find that in fact I may have been wrong to varying degrees. I think this is good though, not being wrong, but spending the time to look these things up and correct myself even before someone else has to spend their time to do it. Not only that, but in attempting to correct or refine someone else's statements and looking up my own material to provide as proof I often find myself learning more about the subject then I ever knew before.

But what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it can easily change over time. What is correct one year may be incorrect the next. All the more reason in my mind to make corrections when you see it needs to be done. There's nothing wrong with being wrong about something, as long as you accept that you were wrong and go from there.

I don't know why society seems to have placed this idea into people's minds that if they're wrong about something they're stupid because that's not how it works. In fact, this was the subject of a new topic I was working on in a notepad document until I got a BSoD from a corrupted file and it wasn't saved....



While I'm no psychologist, I have taken a number of psych classes and sociology as well. Sociology was my favorite class of them all. It gave me a new perspective on the world that no class could hope to surpass. But what would it take to get people involved? Many people feel powerless and don't know where to start. No one wants to stand out on the corner and protest by themselves do they? Even with a small group of people you tend to get mocked unless it's a subject that the majority can get behind.

Plus, to be truly effective during a protest you really need the news to cover what you're doing and why. But often times the media has just run a blackout campaign against certain types of protesters. The news media on a large scale is no longer on the people's side I don't think. They work for corporate entities and have corporate agendas. The news media used to work for us, being informative about a vast range of important issues. Now, they are incredibly selective in what they broadcast. It may not seem this way since they broadcast all day but have there ever been those days when you wondered how the news could be so tedious and boring? The world is far from boring and there is always fresh news to talk about but the major networks are rating whores. Sadly, they air what provides them ad revenue. Even worse, news agency data shows that those are the types of stories [most] Americans want to hear. Is it true? I hope not. I hope their polling data is crap, I hope it's useless and incorrect. Maybe to some extent it is but in general I think it works well enough..

But there's a big difference between not giving a damn and caring but not knowing what to do, where to start, how to make a sizable enough difference. Then there's also the 9-5 jobs, the family, the kids, the friends and relatives and bills to pay. A lot of people don't have time for much else then what their life already offers.

However, I think the change will come when people feel that their quality of life has degraded to a point where they just can't stand it anymore. Those people already exist (the 99%'s). But they do not exist at a large enough capacity. The approval rating of government being so low, hovering around 9 percent? They may be unhappy with their government but not enough yet to lay down their jobs, their family routine, and march in a direction of real change.



No, no it's not going to tear itself down. I'm going to be honest here and say I've lost all faith in our democracy, our republic. I continue to vote, but not because I'm happy with the candidates. Although, I vote for exactly who I think would best represent the interests of this country, not who the mainstream media and two major parties put forward as our only choices. If that means I have to write in a name, I do it. I refuse to be reduced to two choices when I think both are crap. How often do you hear people voting for one candidate, not because they think they're a good fit, but because they don't want the other candidate in office? I have seen this frequently. Further evidence the system is broken.

I can be quite sure that the one I will be voting for this election will not be elected but I don't care. I'm making a statement with my vote. Not voting, you make no statement to anyone, you just don't 'count'. I will be counted, but it won't be among those who vote for Romney or Obama. I think if more people voted for exactly who they wanted, and not for whom they were whittled down to, the polls would be much more interesting.


I think this was a valuable discussion and I'll be finishing that video later today.

Haha, what you say about the voting reminds me of a quote from "New model army" by Adam Roberts. I don't remember the exact quote, but he says something along the lines that nowadays, we don't have a true democracy, we have an "oligarchy" punctuated by televised popularity contests every few years... And it's funny how true that is. We only really influence who rules us, it's incredibly hard for us to actually get the people to do what they promised once theyre in power.

It makes you think, what with the influence of the media, and the huge slander campaigns, how many people actually vote for the person whose platform they agree with more, and how many people vote for the person they consider more "likable." Considering that their "likability" is just a facade for the television, it's like voting for the person with the shiniest car: not a sound choice. We even see the facade slip at times, like with the recent Romney scandal.

I'm not an American citizen, but I do not envy you having to vote for a president who has done nothing, and a president who will do nothing.

On that note, at least you're lucky you live in a republic. I live in a "constitutional monarchy" run by a parliament, and that works even worse than a republic haha  :D

Yeah, that video I linked describes pretty well why gov't gets deadlocked on even simple stuff... more money.

Society is corrupt because of the carelessness and selfishness people put in their lives. People become play toys for the media, and have their minds manipulated to false conclusions. Because of this, nothing will be mentally stable. The only ones stable in a society keep people together. But could also be depended on which in turn could be dangerous. In a political view, you try to manipulate people to join your side. i.e. the commercials full of lies. All we can truly do is wait unless we put our foot down and say "Enough". But this is my way to look upon today's way of life. Everyone has different thoughts in their own way and you just have respect it.

And a mentally unstable society leads to false conclusions about piracy.

For the past few years I have spent my waking hours casually asking myself from time to time, day to day, "If I could identify exactly one negative component of human existence what single definition could encompass it all?" What could explain all of the bad decisions?

I juggled a few words around for a while, slowly ruling each one out as they would fail to fit into a given scenario. My definition/word had to fit every scenario. I finally found a word that fit this definition and worked in all scenarios and to this day I have been unable to find a human moment or action in which it does not fit.

Greed.

It is the only word which could adequately describe the negative aspects of the human condition so completely in my mind. In fact I found that the only scenarios in which greed did not play some role, remote or otherwise, was when the individual had literal mental conditions outside the 'norm' of what were to be expected by your average person.

Can anyone think of something mankind or an individual has done in a negative light that did not have, to some length, something to do with greed? (And did not also pertain to an abnormal mental condition.)

Greed can take many forms and for many different reasons. Being able to classify the negative aspects of human behavior and decision making with one word seemed to offer a new kind of clarity.

That's what anchors the way of life. Greed. You can't stop it. And if you did, you can't contain it. Greed is in even the simplist of life-forms. It would be nice to look back on this one day. :)

Edit: I love talking to people about things like this. It really opens your eyes.

In the case of money's corruption of U.S. gov't, it's not the greed of the politicians at play on the surface, but the greed of the corporations.  Politicians have developed a survival instinct that if they can't fund their next election then they are out of a job.  Because everyone else (your competition) is accepting corporate money to fund their own elections, if you don't do it then you are at a severe disadvantage.

Somewhere around half way through that video (or maybe it was further, it really is worth watching to the end if you can) the number one issue congress dealt with in 2012 was discussed.  It's not even a very important issue but there were plenty of lobbyists.  In this case, constantly switching sides on the issue earned the biggest payout because you'd get funds each time... so of course the issue was never really going to get resolved.  Which, by the way, is also fine with the corporations usually.  "Business as usual" is better than many alternatives.

This is a prime example of where it's actually in the best interest of congress to make sure nothing happens but talk.  So either they make decisions that are bad for us and good for corporations... or they try and make no decision at all.  Kind of disgusting, really.

I disagree actually, about greed being a word that can sum it up. Greed is often a motivation, but I think the real cause is a lack of self-control; acting without thinking. Greed is a perfectly normal, natural and sometimes even healthy emotion; greed is just an extreme form of self-preservation. I think that everyone feels greed at times, and that it's even ok sometimes to indulge in that greed. I feel however, that it is a lack of sympathy that turns greed, hate or anger into a greedy, hateful, or violent action. The desire for more - or in this case, too much - is simply too shallow an explanation for negative human actions, the true cause of people hurting each other is a lack of self-control. Everyone hates, feels jealousy and greed, but alot of people never act on it because they have self-control, and are able to realise the effects of their actions. So yeah, to sum up, I think that a lack of self control is what causes most problems. Greed itself isn't a bad emotion, as long as you think before acting.

Conversation and debate are the fires of progression and positive change.

Just to clarify, I don't want to confuse greed with the innate necessity of all life forms to maintain survival instincts. I don't believe non sentient beings can harbor such emotions as greed or take action to satisfy such desires. I'm not sure what you believe; evolution, religion, creationism, a combination. What I can say and I think even creationists could agree on is that animals survive to reproduce. All of their survival instincts are based on the need to reproduce, to carry on.

Humans are able to understand abstract concepts, to imagine and create works of art, to conceptualize and build with all manner of tools. I don't think most animals understand greed the way we perceive it because it's not only an emotion which must be taught through social interaction but also has to be a concept in which the brain can comprehend.

A real life example:
I have 3 dogs. Their pack mentality states that there must be a leader, a hierarchy. This provides for efficiency, sustainability, survivability. If one pack leader dies they are replaced by the next in line. The 'pack' is complex by its own right but not when compared to the societal structure of mankind. Humans lead and follow, but require neither as a guiding principal. Humans are able, though sometimes not willing, to coexist without a leader because while our primal nature calls for a leader we have advanced and developed to a stage where if we all work together we can achieve democracy. A point where we can accept that while the majority should rule, it should also not suppress free expression of minority groups or individuals, and it should not trample on the inherent human rights of others.

When you see one dog growl at another because they want the toy they're playing with or because another in the pack appears to be 'too interested' in the toy the other dog is playing with, the dog which growled is higher in the structure of hierarchy. Does this mean the one which growled is greedy? I don't believe so for the following:

• Packs constantly keep each other in check. If one dog tests another or attempts to ascend the structure of hierarchy the dog above them will either put them back in their place or relent and descend the structure of hierarchy. This is unusual because dogs often find their place and rarely test the water or attempt to leave their place. Extenuating circumstances can change this however, such as one whom is injured within the pack.
• There are dogs which exert their dominance and dogs who remain passive and accept the authority of others. The most dominant dogs (typically not domesticated) may vie for control of the pack. The rest are usually able to slowly settle into place. If two dogs display roughly the same amount of dominance, they will test each other until one gives in.
• All of this is necessary for the survival of the pack. Survival has no need for greed, living is enough.

I hope that made sense and wasn't too ambiguous.

Another example is between two siblings. I have no siblings so I never experienced this personally but I have observed. Usually your kids have more than one toy. Often times, within my extended family, I would see two siblings fight over who should be able to play with a certain toy, when many were present. I never had this issue growing up, my toys were my own. Through observation my only determination was that two or more siblings would go through this stage of social exploration. They were figuring out where they stood within the social structure, testing the water, like puppies in a pack would as they grew into adulthood. I haven't spoken to a psychologist in depth about this yet but have access to a few who could help me understand this issue, through my campus.

I also don't want to confuse greed with the simplistic and innocent emotion of want or desire. Greed is what you do with that desire which negatively impacts others.



I believe it is both the greed of the politicians and the greed of the corporations. If the corporations waved bills at politicians and the politicians shrugged their shoulders at the pile of money and walked away then the corporation would have failed in their attempt to sway the policies of our governmental institutions.

Do I think all politicians are corrupt? Absolutely not. I take into consideration all that I can in moderation. I say the same thing when people call all cops pigs and wish death upon them. Some cops are corrupt. Less today than in the past as new policies are put into place and it becomes easier for video and audio to be broadcast freely and quickly travel across the internet. But like I said, everything in moderation.

I want to mention the following quote by Edmund Burke (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke):

- Unknown; commonly attributed to E. Burke despite lack of evidence.

Just as we, the people, have done little to hinder the progress of corruption within our institutions, so have our good representatives. They stood idly by. Had they spoken aloud and brought this to the public spectacle, as a group and not individually, who could have failed to heed but those who simply closed their eyes and ears?

Eisenhower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower) spoke of the military industrial complex and now it is ever present in our daily lives. In fact if you lack faith in the U.S. military or in the orders they are given you are deemed socially awkward, a traitor to some, a coward, a fool, an isolationist.

Yet Eisenhower warns of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY) from decades past.

I finished watching that video a few hours ago, great insights indeed. I've shared it with with some of my friends in education, one who is nearing the final stages of their PHD.



Greed - Intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food

I put that there as a reference, not to insinuate you didn't know what it meant.

I don't like to confuse or even correlate greed with self preservation. Nor do I believe that self preservation plays a role in most of our lives these days on a regular basis. The last time I faced danger to a severity in which my life could imminently end, that I recall, was when I was pulling an injured man off of a busy roadway (about 4 years ago). I specifically am talking about imminent danger because just walking outside you could be in more danger than remaining inside. Just getting into your car and going for a drive increases your risk to be in a fatal accident regardless of how careful you are.

To be greedy is to want more than is necessary for your survival. Therefore, in effect, it has little to do with self preservation. Societies definition of what substantiates greed may vary for many reasons such as resource availability and cultural bias. But many words like greed can be left open to interpretation in a world where few definitions mean the same thing in two different places.

I agree that for greed to truly have a negative impact on society someone must act on it but this was implied, I thought. While I think a lack of self control describes a wide variety of situations and does maintain a place in the top tier of negative impacts on society I don't think it tops the list. This is my opinion however.

Here is some personal life experience which may show my reasoning for this and I will try to keep that part brief. Also I will say the following in a hypothetical sense.

1. For 7 years a conman was able to deceive not only my mom but my grandmother, his two kids, his mom, his ex-wife, the rest of his entire family, and his church.
2. This conman was able to steal not thousands, but hundreds of thousands, from not just us but other victims as well; through misleading and false investments for his own benefit.
3. He was well read and incredibly smart, was able to compartmentalize his life to the extreme, and outsmarted more than average citizens but those of law enforcement and the Russian mafia.
4. The latter caught up with him in his own home in the form of a manufactured brain aneurysm, not natural.

5. This man had an exceptional talent for self control in order to compartmentalize to a degree in which he could avoid detection for almost a decade before a nasty [group] caught up with him. But what he maintained in self control he lacked in morals and values. He knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it anyway.

He acted on his greed. Not out of impulse, but careful calculation.

I know, I remember those years well. I remember...

Sern, that's a very well thought out response.

Firstly, I understand your point that dogs or wolves will want a specific thing as a way of keeping their place in the hierarchy, but I would argue that ( based on the belief that we are animals who evolved a specific way) that desire to keep a certain hierarchical position is the reason behind greed for power. Similarly, the drive for food as a form of self-preservation is the reason behind greed for wealth.

To extrapolate, I do not mean that they are the same thing, I believe that greed is a learned behaviour that is built upon the base of self-preservation. As you probably know, the instinct of self-preservation is only a single facet of the larger drive to pass on ones genes. Referring to your example of wolves again, in a pack the alpha has first pick of meat and has breeding rights with all the females of the pack. The alpha male is chosen through a number of factors, such as size, ability to hunt, fight and intimidate the other members of the pack. The alpha male is therefore the most successful: most likely to eat, most likely to mate etc. Greed is the human equivalent of wanting to be the alpha male; except for us it is much more complicated. Human society is drawn to excess. The man with more money and power than he knows what to do with is considered "successful."  So when the state that is seen as succesful requires you to reach excesses, reaching excesses IS based on the drives of self-preservation and mating. Greed at it's highest level is the all-consuming drive to become the absolute Alpha male. A wolf feels no greed because once it achieves the goal of being alpha male it has maxed it's genetic drive, something which is damn near impossible in human society.

I believe that greed IS fundamentally connected to the drive for the continuation of one's genes, and that it is the state wherein no matter how far we strive, we never quite reach what our genes tell us is the ultimate goal. Perhaps that is due to the afore-mentioned inability to reach Alpha male status, or perhaps greed itself IS an abnormal mental condition, and only exists because humankind evolved without an inhibitor button for their drives haha.

"Eisenhower spoke of the military industrial complex and now it is ever present in our daily lives. In fact if you lack faith in the U.S. military or in the orders they are given you are deemed socially awkward, a traitor to some, a coward, a fool, an isolationist. Yet Eisenhower warns of this from decades past."
-Sern

Referring to this phenomenon actually, have you read "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville? It was written in the 1800's, yet it makes a prediction on the dangers of democracy. Alexis refers to what he calls a "tyranny of the majority," wherein the many can drown out the voice of the one. In my opinion, this is especially dangerous if the majority allow themselves to be mislead by propaganda. Even worse, these minority views can then experience something called a "spiral of silence," where those who ARE in the minority, recognise that they are in the minority, and do not speak up for fear of being ostracized.

I'd just like to say lastly, that I am not discrediting your ideas, only putting forward my own. I quite enjoy a healthy argument haha.

I would absolutely agree that a hierarchic structure is important to some people and sociology explained this a number of ways. I don't see myself as someone who requires some sort of hierarchy to be a part of.

If we were back in the stone age I'd probably the the b*tch cutting stone and hand it to the next guy to fashion into a weapon. Although, while I seek peace, I would viciously protect my family, friends, and what I perceive to be my innate human rights of existence. Maybe this is just a piece of an explanation to my career choice. I am constantly wondering why I chose to go into the field in which I see myself, despite its down sides which grow more prevalent by the day.

I don't understand your correlation between a "drive for food as a form of self-preservation" as "the reason behind greed for wealth." I can see how we've, for the most part, surpassed the survivability instincts pertaining to food. Actually that's not true. We'll never surpass that but what I'm saying is that the major powers have done an excellent job at providing the industry and ability to provide food on a mass scale. Corn for example, we have so much we don't know what to do with all of it. Scientists are trying to figure out additional uses for corn and we are already shoving it down animals throats which normally don't consume corn as a natural part of their diet.

Who desires wealth to unhealthy degrees and what does wealth provide for? Well it definitely gives access to a top tier comfort of living but also provides access to a, potentially, unhealthy form of social interaction. I don't think any of the middle class fall into the wealthy arena, probably not even the upper middle class. But first we would have to agree on what the upper middle class makes. I'm thinking around 100k/yr or less per person? Wikipedia agrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class#Income) with that assessment I think.

Well 100k a year per person is getting up there, but that's the top 5 percent right? About 77 percent of the middle class make up the middle to low income spectrum. So would you say we've classified anything over that as excess? I would. The only thing beyond the upper middle class would be the rich. But honestly, to me, 100k sounds REALLY good. That is something I don't ever see myself obtaining and honestly don't care to. I want to live comfortably and that is something that would make me happy. I want to be financially stable.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you're saying but the sun is rising, I haven't slept yet, and I have class in a few hours. I feel almost blind right now staring at this screen. So it's time I squeeze in what sleep I can and as soon as I can I will revisit this topic and attempt to provide a better response. I have a feeling I made some grammatical mistakes given my current state of mind. I don't want to think how many times I hit the backspace key writing this...

I don't call it an argument, despite that it might technically fit the definition. I have a sad background in my life when it comes to "arguments" so I try to avoid the word altogether. I prefer to think of things as a debate since it allows me to forget any negative connotations.

tl;dr



couldnt help my self. but i love your enthusiasm in posting walls of text :P

What I meant by greedy animals is that you can see them doing something that seems selfish to yourself, but to them It's really just what any animal would do anyway.