As usual, the guy conveniently ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.
Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations. That I am quite confident of.
In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies. Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous. Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.' The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses. Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.
Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.
Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or people. Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about? I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things. The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations. Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.
I do not believe anything like that is happening. It's always fun to think up some conspiracy. But the evidence points to a very banal, unsexy and expected truth. We turn the insane out on the street, they go off their meds, then they split from reality. It happens all the time and been this way throughout human history. In fact (despite a spike this year) the murder rate is at historic lows. You have to go back 50 years to find a lower rate. This dates back to a change in attitude about how to handle the mentally ill during the Reagan years. Progressives thought that the mentally ill had rights and were people too; and they dumped them out on the streets and closed the mental hospitals. That was the beginnings of the homeless population of the USA. But the (bolded above) today it's different than the rest of human history, because the psychoactive drugs that are supposed to keep these people stable, if they are not taken, will result in immediately crazy and dangerous people. This is not well understood. Go back to old movies or descriptions of "insane asylums" from before the introduction of the first drug used to sedate this population, Thorazine. You will see what a "Lunatic" was. And they were something to see. Thorazine made them into babies, as far as handling them went. It turned people that had to be put in padded rooms, into semi druggy glazed eye half zombie creatures that were pretty harmless. |
|
|
|
Here is an example of the bias found in reporting on criminal violence. This week's nut-job killer at a Tennessee movie theater was described as a "gunman" in all the initial media reports. But why was he not described as a "hatchetman" or a bomber? The only gun he had was a bb gun. He did hatchet some people and had apparently planed on blowing the place up, but these things do not fit the presumption that banning guns is the same as banning violence. As always, it's a mentally disturbed person with a long criminal history who everyone knew was going to kill someone sometime.
Actually they argue the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
I know all the humans are going to die. My hope is that some bacteria live. We are all just expressions of DNA, so who cares if humans survive? There is only one living creature on Earth and if part of it lives then it will bounce back in just a few million years. It's all good.  The climate changed this morning. I saw it myself, don't need no scientists. I know it's our fault and I should pay carbon taxes, but it may be too late. This really bright hot round thing started to rise up from the horizon. At the same time the land started getting hotter. And I calculate that it's really going to get really hot. Then there will be heat waves and droughts and hurricanes and storms and flooding and ice and no ice and scary bad stuff like drowned puppies. |
|
|
|
As long as gun manufacturers keep making record profits with zero regulation, it's all just pissing in the wind. Why are they two completely different issues? Because you declare them as such? I find them VERY closely related, because without guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we are nothing but potential targets for criminals waiting to become victims. THAT's a fallacy. Potential targets... waiting to become victims... listen to yourself.  Are those the words of an enlightened adult who maybe visits a gun range from time to time? Someone who accepts that guns have downsides and is willing to compromise? No, it's a fucking unhealthy fear-based mindset. BTW, by definition, criminals do not follow regulation. At least you're learning. A bit slow, but there seems to be progress. Now, take the next step, and think about what practical measures would be required to reduce a criminal's ability to access guns. Hint: it's in the price. It is not a difficult concept. If you can afford to pay for it, you can get it. I'm not interested in your utopian bullshit. You're so steeped in your idealism -- that must be why the idea of simply taxing the damn things escapes you. The same goes for ANY contraband from drugs to uranium. Pretending regulations will some how prevent criminals from acquiring guns is a fairy tale. The war on drugs worked so well reducing the availability of drugs, I guess we should try regulating guns too!
You sure that's a straw man? Looks like the giant marshmallow man from Ghostbusters. Call it a tax on the steel coming in to the gun factories, if it makes you feel better. That way it's not the guns being regulated, it's the raw materials Gun sales in the USA are already regulated. You are arguing for more regulation and reduction of availability of firearms. Yes. By default you are arguing for the restriction of supply of firearms by law. Correct. Considering that there is a tremendous actual supply of firearms globally, and that won't change any time soon, so what you are arguing for then is the removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. It's the indignant, self-righteous "law abiding citizens" wanting to have guns AND have them dirt cheap, which enables criminals to also have cheap access. Criminals will always find ways around laws and regulations, that's why they are called criminals.
That's a nice theory you got. Of course the stats say that law abiding citizens cause the most gun deaths. You know why? Those stats include self defense, police shootings, and suicides, and you parrot it as if they are all murders. After that the most murders using guns are from gang activity, and gangs will always find a way to kill with or without guns. All that "criminals will always find a way" crap is crap. Why should normal law abiding citizens be less capable of finding a way? Criminals are in NO WAY superior to anyone else. They're typically poor, hungry, desperate, failures who made mistakes or were unlucky in life. Also, nice to hear that you don't give a shit about "other" deaths if it's not murder. Why not just call it collateral damage? The criminal side is far from a red herring, because it is real fucking easy to sit outside the country and let us be the victims of violence while you poo poo us about gun ownership. LOL! It's like you're complaining about rampant alcoholism and broken bottles in your society, but when I suggest an excise tax, you're like "piss off! You and your sober ideas!" BTW WTF does Lockheed Martin have to do with any of this?
Substitute whatever other brand names. Also I never said "Regulations don't work", that is all you. BTW that is a nice straw man again attributing a statement to me and then arguing against it. The USA already has plenty of gun regulations, making more is not going to improve the situation as I explained criminals just seem to not care about laws, furthermore most regulations punish people AFTER THE FACT, so it is not preventing anything anyway. Funny how that works. Where there is a will, there's a way. But first there needs to be a will. Let me see if I understand this. Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices. Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand. Something does not compute there. |
|
|
|
That is of course unless the government is signing their paychecks, then they will do what they are told.
That is extremely cynical. 1)Do you have any experience of working in science / with scientists? 2)How do you propose science is funded 3) When scientists were providing evidence of harmful effects of tobacco on health while politicians were on the boards of big tobacco, were they doing what they were told?! They eventually - over decades - changed policy which cost big tobacco. http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Kenneth_Clarke#Tobacco_Links) Not comparable, is it? Look at the budget for propaganda in the given issue. (or the lack of a budget.) |
|
|
|
....
Do you have any theory as to why there is little outrage from leftists and the WH, but a CHRISTIAN baker who won't bake a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding is demonized throughout the media, threatened by homosexuals and fined over $130k by the govt?
Does Islam trump gay within the leftist belief system?
no wedding cake from a Christian= lots of leftists
homosexuals tossed off of roofs by Muslims= not a peep from the left
Because the whole point is to jam useless crap into the media system, that keeps actual news out. I'm surprised you even ask. |
|
|
|
That's exactly how I started feeling about Jon Stewart, I thought the guy was great in his prime, but as the years went by no matter how angsty he might get about it he started towing the political mainstream line far too much when before he would call both sides out on their bullshit. Remember during one of the campaigns how they mocked both Democrats and Republicans at the same time? Gone now, I wonder if it's partly because he was planning on leaving he started playing it safe and going after the easy targets like racists and homophobes.
I am not looking forward to Trevor Noah at all, I suspect he'll be really bad, because as bad as Jon Stewart could get he at least had some self-respect and could admit when he was wrong but oh dear. Thank fuck Top Gear got onto Amazon and Bill Maher is still kicking around otherwise I don't know what we'd all do if we didn't have them calling people out on their bullshit.
I think what happened was he got far too much political power (which I don't think he was actively seeking) and TPTB gave him an offer he couldn't refuse honestly. Bill Maher? Really? I consider him a bigger knob and sell out than John Stewart ever was. Hello, John Stewart. You are welcome to respond here on bitcointalk.org and explain why you are full of shit (or why you are not.) Be sure to explain how much more money someone paid you to act "correctly." You see, some of us would like to know what the scale of these payoffs are. Thanks. |
|
|
|
... Healthcare professionals and scientists are interested in improving health, not being biased towards government. See BMA and other groups output, usually in response to government imposed changes. Compare and contrast the UK's expensive and price discriminatory private train lines with other more efficient publicly run ones (eg France). Majority of the UK population support rail re nationalisation https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/11/why-do-people-support-rail-nationalisation/A simple question. What is the UK budget for propaganda directed toward. 1) "Support Rail Nationalization!" 2) "National Heath Care is So Great!" No more needs be said. |
|
|
|
The problem is that technology so heavily favors offensive potential over defensive. Nation-states prioritize offensive tech for reasons that should be obvious to any student of history. Gun control wouldn't be such a huge problem if we all had personal force-fields and/or tissue-regenerating nanobots in our bloodstream. This is why Hawking and others theorize that few, if any, civilizations survive the transition from type I to type II. If/when a civilization's weapons tech approaches type II destructive potential before that civ's social evolution reaches type II creative potential, it's game over for that planet. This is the reason I believe we must rid ourselves of the nation state ASAP. Beliathon, you have actually, if only for once, said something that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Hi All. Over the last few days I became aware of the 'Technocracy' movement which, if I'd heard of it before, went in one ear and out the other. Once in a while something which fits a lot of pieces of a puzzle together quite well comes along and it is exhilarating for want of a better term. This is one of these times. In my various research I've not been able to put together certain aspects of economy, politics, technology, etc very convincingly though my own thesis about corporatism and fascism came relatively close to the new (to me) information. I do suggest that those interested in 'carbon' take the time to familiarize themselves with the Technocracy movement which dates back to the 1930's in a fairly tangible way and, at the time, included M. King Hubberd of 'peak oil' fame. Here's a tantalizing bit of their doctrine: 1. Register on a continuing basis the 24 hour-per-day basis of the total net conversion of energy.
2. By means of registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a “balanced load”.
3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption. [Scott, Howard, et al, Technocracy Study Course, p. 232]Think: datamining.[
...
One Patrick Wood has done a lot of work on the Trilateral Commission for decades and gives a run-down of the nature and relationship between this and Technocracy with some convincing documentation of the tie-in (and good info on both subjects) here. It's a good intro for anyone who is interested, and I suggest that it is highly valuable in understanding the global climate change issues of today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHWrceNajf4In looking around for more info, I see that one of my perennial favorites, James Corbett, at least claims to have done some work along these lines over the years, and I found an Alan Watt who pointed them out some years ago in general association with the 'new world order'. There exist a website for Technocracy, Inc which was the formal organization set up in the 1930's and operating at Columbia. My feeling is that the material presented there is designed to paint a picture of a bunch of long-ago failed losers and incompetent Utopians, and I would be suspicious that this is the goal of the presentations on-line. My own rejection of whatever we are moving toward currently (which I've identified as corporatism with collectivist marketing) can only end in totalitarianism which I personally fear like the plague...or even worse than the plague to be accurate. Here is a rather well made post war vid from the Technocracy movement. I find it fascinating historically. One can imagine the movements expression at the time being a turn-off to Americans who had just suffered significant losses (and gains which were less obvious to the bullet-stopper classes) due to the fascist movements in Europe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDX9dyjqimAThe youtube video of the old film is rather amazing. Some of those trends of thought were clearly incorporated into modern totalitarian/fascist/progressive liberal ideas, or as I call it Perverted Authoritarian Liberal Control Freaks (Freakism, in this context). |
|
|
|
I know all the humans are going to die. My hope is that some bacteria live. We are all just expressions of DNA, so who cares if humans survive? There is only one living creature on Earth and if part of it lives then it will bounce back in just a few million years. It's all good. I thought we were all planning past the Sun's supernova? NO? Well are we all planning past the next keystroke? NO? Hey, it's all good... |
|
|
|
Is there a penalty if i shoot those spy drones with my sniper? I hope not.
Jokes aside, the whole drone thing is getting more dangerous everyday. Yet, I cannot ignore its benefits.
VanMeter has a 16-year-old daughter who lays out at their pool. She says a drone hovering with a camera is creepy and weird.Just hope that it's not a government owned drone, because then, of course IT'S A GOOD THING, and if you shoot it down, YOU ARE A BAD GUY. (says the creepy perv watching the drone camera feed at TSA local headquarters.) |
|
|
|
So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.
Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.
So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.
It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.
Your religious belief is 'warmly' welcomed here... No ban for you. How refreshing? I know right.  Might be the reason your dreaded thread does not suffer from the misery of the Reddit Global Warming thread. Let's see...we'll just check with the Reddit Overlord of Banning Deniers (Fungus_Schmungus[M]) and see what he says about why he must post, himself -
Had I not posted, the thread would be empty (like most of the threads from the past month)Why our threads not empty? |
|
|
|
Another gem from Reddit refuting your statements. AN ARTICLE FROM BLOOMBERG. Last I heard, that wasn't peer reviewed science. The article is feel good fancy graphics. They are not even referenced. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/Following is the ENTIRE 7 comments, in which the MOD admits to dominating the discussion - further - he admits just about nobody reads this crap. And it's not scientific, not peer reviewed. Let's ban the Moderator. This thread is far more popular than the biased, ban-heavy, dogmatic, political junk science of reddit's Global Warming thread. Likely because it's far less biased, does not ban, is not dogmatic, and allows all versions of real as well as political and junk science. They do tend to sort themselves out. Cheers. ************ all 7 comments sorted by: best [–]Fungus_Schmungus[M] 1 point 1 month ago Those graphics are very, very well done. Thanks for the submission. It really helps boil an extremely complicated subject (radiative forcing ensemble) down into an accessible and intuitive visual. permalink [–]V2Blast 1 point 1 month ago ...Is there a reason you distinguished this comment? permalinkparent [–]Fungus_Schmungus 0 points 1 month ago Because I was referring to the submission in an official capacity. Is that a problem? permalinkparent [–]V2Blast 1 point 1 month ago It didn't really seem like you were speaking about anything moderation- or rules-related. Too many mods in too many subreddits just distinguish unrelated posts to give their own submissions/comments more visibility among all the other posts (not saying that's what you're doing). permalinkparent [–]Fungus_Schmungus 1 point 1 month ago
I'm speaking as the moderator of a sub that has less than 500 subscribers and that is very inactive in terms of comments. Had I not posted, the thread would be empty (like most of the threads from the past month) so I clearly don't gain anything in terms of competition. As a mod, I appreciated the valuable content, and I wanted to ensure that the user was aware that this was the case. In places as quiet as /r/GlobalWarming, I also think it helps that the mods show they're still around every once in a while. The rest of the moderation team has been inactive for weeks/months, so there's not much activity on that end either. permalinkparent [–]Izakor 0 points 1 month ago The next time I talk to someone who says Climate change is fake I'll tell him to look this up. permalink |
|
|
|
So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.....It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.
Just for fun let's look at one of the Reddit posts that's "not about opinion. It's about science." https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalWarming/comments/3bd1v4/can_we_use_cactuses_to_stop_global_warming/I live in the sonoran desert, (southern arizona) and for one, the co2 emitted from our vehicles is killing the saguaro cactus all along the highways in southern AZ. The closer they are to the road, the bigger the black rotting marks covering them. also I can't remember a good heavy monsoon season in the last 20 years or so. I'm just guessing, but I'm not sure a higher density of cacti could survive due to lack of water. I'm not an expert but I'm assuming if the desert could support more plant life, then it would lol. Had a dream last night that the presidential candidate I like was gonna try to pass a law where the roofs of all houses/buildings world wide would be painted white to help reflect the light/heat back into space to make up for the decreasing sq mileage of our polar ice caps. Strange dream in all, but I wonder if it would make any difference, it would surely take a lot of paint lol!Gosh - I'm not finding any scientific evidence that supports the above assertions. Clearly the writer should have been banned but wasn't. His rambling nonsense supports the Creed of the Warmers. |
|
|
|
So... I'm just going to chime in regarding the OP's posts and not about all the other debates going on here.
Basically, r/science is a private board with specific rules that aim at producing peer-reviewed scientific research. This means they should let anyone post who has something like that, regardless of the study's conclusions. This also means that any comments should be regarding the specific study or should be providing referenced citations of adding anything not included in the study.
So, should global warming bashers be banned? Yes, if all they do is spout non-referenced non-scientific non-peer-reviewed research or do not present solid logical arguments to discuss the contents of the study. This should be the case for proponents of global warming as well.
It's r/science. It's not about opinion. It's about science. That's it.
Nonsense. In r/science, those presenting solid scientific evidence and peer reviewed articles supporting one or another of the antithesis of your global warming religion's creed were banned. You know it, we all know it.
10 Images Show What Coastal Cities Will Look Like After Sea-Levels Rise
Let's look at some of your "solid scientific" reddit topics.
CALL TO ACTION - Please take 3 minutes today to make an important phone call.
India blames heat wave deaths on climate change
Rap News does it again... Pope Francis: The 10 Climate Commandments (RAP NEWS 33)
15 Strangest Weather Events So Far in 2015
Western Heat Wave Enters History Books; At Least Six June Records Already Broken; All-Time Records Threatened
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
10 Images Show What Coastal Cities Will Look Like After Sea-Levels Rise
Climate Change is making me depressed
NOAA: Hottest first half of the year in Northern Hemisphere by stunning 0.36º Farenheit
World's most famous climate scientist outlines an alarming scenario for planet's future
To be fair, your closing paragraph (bolded) proposes "equal banning." But who bans the banners? Once you invoke the heavy hand of censorship in the guise of promoting the common good, you live with the consequences. If you don't like the consequences, don't complain here. The joke that is Reddit is being laughed at here. Further, by your own logic your post should not be allowed. I hereby ban you from all places where words are typed on keyboards and from using electrons to move imperfect and flawed ideas. |
|
|
|
|
The 2nd Amendment, like it or not, does not say that ownership of firearms may be permitted in such a manner as to yield the lowest possible number of gun deaths.
Any reasonable person understands the reality that protection against everyday crime as well as the more dramatic mass killings that each get 1 minute of news coverage requires a percentage of the population to be armed.
Some people keep projecting their utopian fantasies of the perfect society onto the real world, and believe that restricting guns will lean things in that direction.
That's the "gun control issue" in a nutshell.
|
|
|
|
I don't see what you mean by countries trying to monopolize Bitcoin. As far as regulations go, there is an attempt being made to regulate bitcoin companies, not Bitcoin itself. If any government overreaches, companies will just move to jurisdictions which are better regulated.
It's fair to say that the New York "Bitcoin License" is something of an attempt by the State of New York to gain control over the Bitcoin use and market, since by way of it they gain info on both parties to any transaction, where only one of the two is in New York, or even where only an exchange is in New York. More can be elaborated on that but I'll stop. Oh, and by the way "countries trying", you do know what is meant. "Trying" does not mean "succeeding," of course. |
|
|
|
Now why do we need to believe things government reports tell us? |
|
|
|
That's all very nice, and I'm sure your enjoyed yourself.
Just as I am sure that your grandfather was one of the boys who yelled "Get a horse" at early motorists.
Ahhh for that comparison to work somebody like Henry Ford would of had to been roaming around the country tricking people into thinking horses caused polio while simultaneously trying to sell them an inferior expensive alternative. Do you know why the car replaced the horse? Because it worked and people wanted it. Government didn't have to create mass ignorant hysteria by demonize pinhookers. Shevon you need to accept the single solitary reality that is at the heart of your problem with this global warming nonsese... ...you've been tricked. You've been scammed Fitzroy. Swindled, ripped off, defrauded, deceived, conned, hustled, hosed, cheated, pwnd! And you're happy about that which is the most perplexing part of all. +1 Not only all that, but what we really need is hardened power distribution systems - hardened against solar flares and EMF attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
