...Here's a hint on what you were trying to address, but failed as you decided to take a stab at avoidance: Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on.
Once you've done that, we can move forward, rather than engage in this ridiculous conversation where you continually reinforce that you are decidedly not capable of doing what you think you can.
Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument. And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts. They WERE
your ideas....and your beliefsand now you'd like them to be... ...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts. If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine. Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance. Ad hominem yet again. Losing the argument? The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to? Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion? That you are the Controller, and the Authority. Why don't you just admit you don't have the requisite domain knowledge to feel comfortable entering into that argument? Because that's a ridiculous assertion. You've demanded someone pick a subject to discuss from a multitude of technical, regulatory and legal areas, as a way of getting out of the prior discussion, then asserted that if he does not do as you say, he/she has no "requisite domain knowledge", whatever that might mean. But I'm already stated twice why you can't just make demands on people and then insult them if they don't do what you want. In fact, that was the nature of the discussion you wished to get away from, wasn't it? That you are not the proper agent to tell others how to act. And here you are doing it again? |
|
|
|
...
To be fair, we don't currently know how to survive in space. This is a big subject, of course. But it's only by addressing it, and attempting to do it, that we find out what we don't know and begin the movement. And we've done that, although BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, it has been stymied.
... Lol, and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids! Except, of course, that it is only in your mind that you are the adult, and other people on the Internet are kids. But were that true, you would be a perfect example of an adult that I'd recommend a kid not listen or pay attention to. You'd be a near perfect example of someone that should be rebelled against, ridiculed, and ignored. But since it is not true, we need to move to a reality orientation. |
|
|
|
...Here's a hint on what you were trying to address, but failed as you decided to take a stab at avoidance: Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on.
Once you've done that, we can move forward, rather than engage in this ridiculous conversation where you continually reinforce that you are decidedly not capable of doing what you think you can.
Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument. And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts. They WERE
your ideas....and your beliefsand now you'd like them to be... ...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts. If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine. Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. If you can't do that, then I'll assume that you can't back up your claims about control. Your avoidance is telling. You're a blowhard, a parrot with no substance. Ad hominem yet again. Losing the argument? The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to? Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion? That you are the Controller, and the Authority. |
|
|
|
....
I suggest you let go of that tree you've been hugging for the past 50 years, step out of the forest, shave off that enormous mountain-man beard, and go look at what humans have actually been doing with regards to research and science since 1910.
You've missed the possibility that instead of a true environmentalist, it's just a kid in momma's basement babbling on the internet tubes. To be fair, we don't currently know how to survive in space. This is a big subject, of course. But it's only by addressing it, and attempting to do it, that we find out what we don't know and begin the movement. And we've done that, although BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, it has been stymied. We know that Mars is habitable, and that in certain places, with a lot of prep work, we could build biospheres there and transport Earth subsets to Mars. That might be a two hundred year project, no big deal. But yeah, it's totally possible that an "environmentalist" might know little or nothing of this. |
|
|
|
So, we will continue to be considered by most people we know to be paranoid extremists, who have something illegal to hide... We'll just do our usual best, with the hope that we can some day become the majority.
I have nothing to hide, but I have a much to protect. Change is always the result of a radical minority. There is no reason or need to wish such to be a majority. |
|
|
|
I hope nobody is surprised.
That says it all really. If you are surprised by this, then you just haven't been paying attention. There is a certain amount of new stuff in Snowden's material. More than that, however, a lot of the previously leaked/proposed material had to be taken with a certain degree of skepticism since it was mixed in with other material which was/is likely pure tinfoil-hat. What Snowden's releases did was provide high quality verifiable information and a lot of it. Orders of magnitude beyond what any other whistle-blower has done probably in the history of the US. It was a singularly important event, and even more so due to the engineering of the material's release which has been very professional and highly effective. The point is, it's irrelevant. When you look at all the crimes that people in the government commit, all the killing and deliberate destruction in other countries, all the counterfeiting at the Fed, bailouts for bankers. All these things that if you or I did it we would be sitting in a jail cell, then something like this comes along and it's no surprise to me. Just more crimes to add on the top of all the existing ones. It's actually quite amazing to me that people have kicked up such a fuss about it, considering what's gone on before. But I put that down to the bad economy. If things were going great, most people wouldn't have cared much about this and the news cycle would have just moved on without much fanfare. Facts are that the majority of people desperately want to believe that the govt are there to help. Like I said, the economy is all most people care about. If it isn't going well, they will use any excuse to complain to their masters because they don't understand how economics works and so can't grasp the true situation. Well, no. Because if we take your reductionist philosophy of "irrelevancy" anything can be justified anytime, anyplace. That's no different that the whiny libertarians who voted for "hope and change" now saying that "both parties are just as bad". That's being not a fool once, but twice. And here is how the political benefits result from using different attitudes at different times: hope and change - D +1 R -1 both parties are just as bad - D 0 R 0 The net benefit and the net change in power is D. But then, libertarians have always been played for the fool. |
|
|
|
Now you're just stalling -- how did those "armies killing lawmakers" come to be? Did people, in all their wisdom, create & become those armies & lawmakers?
'Coz if they did, i wouldn't trust them to wipe their own asses, much less RULE their own dangerous, retarded selves.
These folks obviously need to be taken care of by a fair but firm nanny state, or they'll make moar "armies killing lawmakers." Angry
Nonsense. I love the governed like i would love a retarded sibling. Try to understand that the helmet i make you wear is for your own good.
The problem is not with the things you are saying, whether you believe them or were just getting paid to do them. The problem is we hear those exact types of things from the government all the time and are pretty sick of it. |
|
|
|
...Here's a hint on what you were trying to address, but failed as you decided to take a stab at avoidance: Please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on.
Once you've done that, we can move forward, rather than engage in this ridiculous conversation where you continually reinforce that you are decidedly not capable of doing what you think you can.
Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument. And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts. They WERE
your ideas....and your beliefsand now you'd like them to be... ...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts. If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine. |
|
|
|
Printing money is theft and therefore fiat money is inherently immoral.
This cannot be repeated enough. It's the biggest scam on Earth and it's hidden in plain sight! Repetition does not make a false statement true. Following your logic, if I buy a TV set and the producer makes just one more unit, you consider that act "theft". The underlying issue (which molecular and wachtwoord probably should've noted explicitly, since you apparently missed it) is that citizens are forced, through threat of prison (ie, violence), to use currency that gets debased. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be anything immoral about it, and it would be analogous to a company, whose stock you own, issuing more shares. But we're forced to use these currencies through the requirement that we pay taxes in them (and other legal tender laws), so when we get diluted, we lose value/property. This is immoral because we're forced to use such currencies without explicit consent or choice, and the entities forcing us to do so intend to deprive us of the value of that asset through dilution. .... No, actually we are not forced to use USD. For some things, yes. Many countries ask for their taxes to be paid in their currency, but freely allow other moneys to circulate. Banks in Austrailia handle many currencies. Banks in US handle only USD, true. But that does NOT force us to use USD. The glass here is either half empty or half full, depending on how you look at it... |
|
|
|
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
But other people can make better beer than I can. What's a guy to do? And I got it, how you explained that man could be set free from men. But we ain't gonna get set free from women. |
|
|
|
....Explain why my vision is dark. Explain how Rassah's vision is wonderful. Factor in the information I have freely provided to you in this post, which is a lot more than you have. In fact, you have provided no information, nor demonstrated any knowledge about the environment.
Generally, the one who makes the extraordinary claim must support it. What I may know about water, aerosol particle formation, deep ocean heat, oxygen isotopes, upper stratosphere heat exchange, Naviar Stokes modeling of turbulence, mathematics of chaotic behavior, etc, isn't relevant one bit to the discussion. Your vision is dark because of it's premise that some (you) know best and may self-affirm their right to control others' behavior. This has not worked out very well, historically. Some of the other people have made some very good comments in this thread, by the way. .....please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. This is called in debate "shifting the goalposts". I reject it as an answer. You asked what I thought was "dark" about your vision, and I tried to answer clearly and without any personal attack. Hello? Anybody home? You made statements that my vision is dark because of control. So I pointed out those controls and asked you to attack them. I guess you can't. Probably due to lack of knowledge. Thus you fall back on your ineffectual memes, which of course, aren't indicative of thought or knowledge, but parroting, repeating what your idols say. Oh. So as opposed to 'your control', you would like to take the stand that the government's controls are what I must criticize? But they are not 'your controls', because they allow massive amounts of drilling and shale oil extraction which increases every year. They allow massive amounts of carbon 'pollution' without any real control, in spite of some threats and hand waving by the EPA and the current administration. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that you were a true environmentalist. And such a person would never take the stand that the environmental position of the US government was his position. And this kind of talk - I guess you can't. Probably due to lack of knowledge. Thus you fall back on your ineffectual memes, which of course, aren't indicative of thought or knowledge, but parroting, repeating what your idols say.Is pretty laughable, given that I've just spent about two years on a major effort, one sizable part of which has been studying radical environmentalism, it's leaders, methods, tactics, strategies, and it's successes and mistakes. It's not the most interesting subject, one could pick better. |
|
|
|
Again, still waiting for the great stories about wonderfully low priced health insurance.
Coinseeker? RodeoX? Anybody?
Here's my story. The insurance bill, which we pay quarterly as self employed, came in today. 50% higher than the previous bill of 3 months ago and 2x what we were paying in 2009. It's a movie script starring you and I. Called "Government Gone Wild". But let me state the obvious. That's an extra $1000 per month that my family will NOT BE SPENDING in the open market for goods and services. So before you get too excited about OBubble-Care think about what if you were working in one of the businesses that just lost my, and many other peoples', $1000 per month. You could be in any form of entertainment, restaurant, travel business, that is based on disposable income. Let's see how that works out. |
|
|
|
....Explain why my vision is dark. Explain how Rassah's vision is wonderful. Factor in the information I have freely provided to you in this post, which is a lot more than you have. In fact, you have provided no information, nor demonstrated any knowledge about the environment.
Generally, the one who makes the extraordinary claim must support it. What I may know about water, aerosol particle formation, deep ocean heat, oxygen isotopes, upper stratosphere heat exchange, Naviar Stokes modeling of turbulence, mathematics of chaotic behavior, etc, isn't relevant one bit to the discussion. Your vision is dark because of it's premise that some (you) know best and may self-affirm their right to control others' behavior. This has not worked out very well, historically. Some of the other people have made some very good comments in this thread, by the way. .....please feel free to attack as best you can environmental controls, regulations, laws, designated wildernesses, and so on. This is called in debate "shifting the goalposts". I reject it as an answer. You asked what I thought was "dark" about your vision, and I tried to answer clearly and without any personal attack. |
|
|
|
...
I just don't think the government is generally as good at solving problems as people are.
...
What you seem to miss is Teh Gobmint *is* people solving problems. It didn't magically appear, it wasn't imposed by aliens. It was mankind's solution -- a tool made to solve problems. The fact that this tool is universally present tells us ether: a. It's a good & effective way to solve problems or b. People can't solve problems for sour apples, making stupit n00b mistaeks, like the governments. No, maybe he didn't miss that. And maybe you are simply wrong. The "government" is not people solving problems. That would be classified as one subset of activity. Another would be "government" NOT solving problems. And yet another would be govenrment creating problems, intentionally and unintentionally. So forth and so on. And throughout history, from time to time governments collapse due to their own problems and inefficiencies, and at other times thrive. Your (a) and (b) are not actually descriptive. |
|
|
|
....Explain why my vision is dark. Explain how Rassah's vision is wonderful. Factor in the information I have freely provided to you in this post, which is a lot more than you have. In fact, you have provided no information, nor demonstrated any knowledge about the environment.
Generally, the one who makes the extraordinary claim must support it. What I may know about water, aerosol particle formation, deep ocean heat, oxygen isotopes, upper stratosphere heat exchange, Naviar Stokes modeling of turbulence, mathematics of chaotic behavior, etc, isn't relevant one bit to the discussion. Your vision is dark because of it's premise that some (you) know best and may self-affirm their right to control others' behavior. This has not worked out very well, historically. Some of the other people have made some very good comments in this thread, by the way. |
|
|
|
... How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The  that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. +1 Why the +1? Is it because you are also not armed with all the information out there? Because Rassah's exposition of "arming with information" trumps your dark vision? |
|
|
|
the gov is not funded for quite some time
it just invents money any time its missing a bit
but don't worry the grandchildren of today's citizen would still pay those debts
I wonder how long it would take to gain same status if some time people went just: "Nope, we won't pay these debts!" Short term pain, over the long term one... Too bad people can't handle that. Problem is, a lot of the debt is right back to the people. Much of US debt is held by US citizens, and specifically retirees, as "safe" retirement investments. Actually that's not a problem. The fact they were lied to and basically forced to hold those "safe" investments is not relevant. They bought them, and they own them, and they can lose on those investments. And they are losing money on them right now, they have in the past, and they will in the future. It is not possible to "make a profit" on holding a fiat currency, for which the currency is being ad hoc printed, by holding said currency to receive an income stream from the printed money. |
|
|
|
... How inadequate and limited in vision you are, when you can't even consider the possibility of us striving to be able to create entire artificial environments all on our own from scratch. Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning, growing food and renewable resources through genetic modification and new technological breakthroughs, terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space. The that comes from some rare species going extinct doesn't feel quite as when we can just "print" more of them in DNA sequencers. +1 |
|
|
|
Muslims can either get out of O-care or they can not.
And they can. We can't. I'm more worried about the government's zealotry than I am about who will wisely choose to stay away from Obamacare, no matter their religion. These are unfortunately indistinguishable. I don't see it as zealousness or religious preferences, but as strict political power plays and vote buying. Couple that with a core of corruption, and a collapsing monetary system. Muslims of course interpret this according to their world view. Dimminitude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DhimmitudeYes it is rather dangerous but not unexpected. |
|
|
|
The key is that radical environmentalists/feminists are annoying. I'm pro recycling/sustainable practices/anti littering, and pro equal rights/equal pay etc, but those people who tell me that I'm a bad person for not driving a hybrid, or that think that women deserve to be better than men due to past descrimination, are the stereotype that people have come to hate. Not to turn this into a religious debate, but for example theres nothing exciting about a Muslim family doing their religious things in their own homes and places of worship, however the things that radicals do are what people hear about, and thats what sticks as common perception.
Recycling and sustainable practices are actually small contributions to helping the environment. But by all means, don't stop. The real killers are industry, legal and illegal. Dams, fishing practices, logging, poaching, highway construction, suburban sprawl, economic growth, factory emissions, deforestation, ecosystem fracturing due to edge effects, agriculture, pesticides, mining and drilling and the necessary attendant infrastructure which brings about edge effects, industrial accidents, oil spills... Now you've just proved you have no clue what you are talking about. And recycling/sustainable practices may or may not contribute positively to "helping the environment". That would depend on the cost effectiveness of the methods employed. Many recycling and "sustainable" practices are ridiculously counterproductive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
