You should burn all the Quran books, starting today.

This ideology should be outlawed.  I don't give a shit who is fighting who.  

The reasons we have terrorists attacks is because of the 6th century ideology.  You cannot escape this one.

Quran 2:191

You have to admit that someone promoting the stock of a pharmaceutical company on a Bitcoin forum looks a lot like pump-and-dump.

Is this a pump and dump?

I listen all kind of music. Mostly electronic, but it varies from my mood. When i was younger i started with gothic and power metal, not long after that a industrial and heavy. After that, well i listened everything that was nice to my ear . Now I appreciate most music from movie and game industries. They are the best you can find in this day and age.

Lol. Is that your "factual" retort? Typical totalitarian-style, leftist response.

Indeed even boomers are caught up in the leftist disease. Nevertheless the leftist disease is more pervasive amongst the Millennials.


Stop reading and first learn to think. Without a functioning brainstem, reading can only lead you astray into confusion or indoctrination.

If you don't have an analytical mind, then you will be easy prey for AGW indoctrination. Those who are very smart, can see the generative essence of the thermodynamics. And thus immediately detect junk science. (Climate) models are not proven science. Models are theories.

I am not going to go off on some long-winded debate wherein I have to educate you on science. Please. I am not going to scream over the 1000s of voices trying to indoctrinate you with their "rational facts".  That is your responsibility to yourself. Why would I invest that much effort?? That would be entirely irrational of myself. Yet you say I am bipolar or manic for telling you frankly that you are a dufus (maybe shock, awe, and embarrassment might wake you up, but I doubt it). That is the simple of way of saying you should STFU because you don't know what the fuck you are writing about. And instead go become smarter.

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

Thanks for your critique.  It's cumbersome to document complex philosophical framework prior to each use of the word 'believe'.  I do try to use the word carefully and mostly stand by my use though I was not careful and it could be read from one of my sentences that I believe 'all' people in positions of power blah, blah, blah.  That was a mistake on my part.  Other than that I stand by my writings.

In logical analysis I use the method of testing the null hypothesis liberally when possible.  Basically, if a null hypothesis is absurd, I tend to assign high weight to a hypothesis and sometimes shift it to a 'fact' or 'near fact' which I can legitimately 'believe'.

The null hypothesis of hCG laced tetanus vaccines being developed is that they were not.  In this case the null hypothesis is that in spite of documented scientific literature and lack of denials of such a program, it never existed.  That nearly impossible to sustain so I 'believe' that such developments were almost certainly undertaken.  There is an outside possibility that the evidence for them was fabricated for some unknown reason, but that is very difficult to believe.  Especially in light of corroborating observations.  By far the simplest explanation was that such developments occurred, and there are abundant reasons to believe that there were means, motive, and opportunity to do just that.

---

As for metals in the body interacting with electromagnetic radiation, like I said from the start it is a 'weak' hypothesis.  Just something I thought up to match against the observation that there seems to be a strong desire to inject them in to humans early and often.  Other hypothesis which are stronger exist including that big brother loves us all, wants the best for us, and will brow-beat the fuck out of anyone who goes against their will.

The observation that some metals (such as iron) tend to be better conductors than others (such as Al) can be weighted against the hypothesis but does not kill it.  In part this is because the hypothetical electromagnetic methods are not known and probably don't even exist at all (which directly applies to the strength of the hypothesis and which is why I consider it 'weak'.  It's filed away, however, because if evidence of electromagnetic population management operations do strengthen, so does the hypothesis about injections.  I would note that in the study of electromagnetism, it is noted that elemental forms of metals behave differently than those found as constituents of more complex molecules like hemoglobin.

---

I tend to not spend much time on metaphysical hypothesis (e.g., Christ died to save sinners, or dark matter and alien consciousness control us all) for the same reason I don't drive my car into a bog where it is certain I'll get stuck.  The world is chalk full of more tangible areas of exploration where real progress can be made.

The systematic favoritism/discrimination related to 'evidence' (and more generally, theories/hypotheses) is a different matter all together.  If questioning the official dogma about, say, polio and our hero scientists involved with it leads to loss of employment and any 'evidence' against it is banished from 'scientific' journals, then I consider limited 'evidence' to be explainable by mechanisms outside of the hypothesis I seek to explore.

You are assuming that one of the religions got it right.   What if they all are wrong?

God would only take hardcore atheists to heaven.

That would be ironic.  We would probably establish democracy, put God on the government pension, bring equal rights to all fallen angels etc.  Now, there is your Broadway musical!!!

Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.

And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:


And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.

Read the thread. I already refuted that. It would not be a long-term effect. Man annihilates himself with a nuclear winter, then everything comes back to normal again within decades. Man can't impact the long-term thermodynamics of the Earth and the solar system. Sorry dumb ass!

You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).

I can't describe myself as somebody who listens to all genres of music since I've pronounced tastes in music. My favourite genre is classical music and my favourite composers are Ferenc Liszt, Claude-Achille Debussy, Joseph-Maurice Ravel, Sergei Rachmaninov, Ernest Bloch, Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitriy Shostakovich, Alexander Scriabin, Bela Bartok, Robert Schumann, Gustav Holst, Hector Berlioz, Zoltan Kodaly, Cesar Franck, Edvard Grieg etc. And also, although I'm a cellist, I rather enjoy listening to concerti, sonatas, sonatinas, etudes, preludes, suites, rhapsodies and various pieces for piano, violin, viola, clarinet, flute, oboe etc.

Yes, that's the only thing that's strange... and not the fact that you have over 4000 religions

"The precise number of religions in the world is not known, but available estimates show the number to be about 4,300, according to Adherents.com"

So the better question would be what religion is the true one.
Pro tip: none

That's what we're trying to say here but some people are somewhat delusional. Eating another human would not be wrong or anything if it's to survive in the last resort. This doesn't involve killing that human and eating him but that can occur too, but rather a freshly dead human body.

By December 1942, the NKVD arrested 2,105 cannibals dividing them into two legal categories: corpse-eating (trupoyedstvo) and person-eating (lyudoyedstvo). The latter were usually shot while the former were sent to prison.

[...]Instances of person-eating were significantly lower than that of corpse-eating; of the 300 people arrested in April 1942 for cannibalism, only 44 were murderers.[69] 64% of cannibals were female, 44% were unemployed, 90% were illiterate, 15% were rooted inhabitants, and only 2% had any criminal records. More cases occurred in the outlying districts than the city itself. Cannibals were often unsupported women with dependent children and no previous convictions, which allowed for a certain level of clemency in legal proceedings.

Have a read of this article, an interview with a guy who was in a plane crash and managed to survive on the side of a mountain, in part by eating the flesh of some of the victims.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160403-andes-uruguay-rugby-cannibal-plane-crash-canessa-ngbooktalk/


I think that last part is beautiful - what seems initially like a grotesque act, becomes a statement of peace and love to humanity, giving life to friends who would otherwise have died.

Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.

If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!

The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.

CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.

Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.

Could easily do, but not gonna happen, sorry. You're way too arrogant to justify any further effort for discussion.

Man-made global warming theory is activist pseudo-science. It's based on scientifically unsound extrapolation of insufficient data sets, collected under confirmation bias. I have no doubt that we'll see a dramatic shift of the scientific mainstream regarding that topic within the next 15 years.

That said, as a pure thought experiment it would be interesting to think about the opposite scenario of a global cooling. Would scientist and public leaders demand the release of more CO2 in that case?

To 'believe a hypothesis' is a nonsense phrase.  At least as I define things.  By my definition a hypothesis cannot be believed.  It sits among other complementary or mutually exclusive hypotheses to be analysed against incoming information or new formulations of information.  Of course it can easily be rejected for a variety of reasons, but NOT simply because it is out of fashion in some way.

It is also the case that one can expect 'good evidence' to surface only when there is a mechanism by which that can occur.  If there are mechanisms by which evidence is limited in quality then it makes no sense to reject a hypothesis by virtue of lack of evidence.  In my analysis of the vaccination issue I see many many efforts to support one hypothesis and discount a competing one in very dishonest ways.

There are strong hypotheses and weak ones.  A good example of a weak one is what I tossed out about metallic components in brain tissue being deliberately installed to make some possible electromagnetic impacts more functional.  I classify it as 'my own' because as far as I remember I came up with it on my own and in a response to the question of why there might be a desire by some to get aluminum (and a bit of Hg) containing vaccines injected into a baby on the first day of life.  Even more, why do so when it seems that the vaccine itself has at best an ambiguous benefit.

My chief argument against the hypothesis that electromagnetic means are sometimes used to manipulate human development and behavior is that such programs could be leaked by insiders and/or detected by outsiders.  With the advent of sensitive and flexible analytical tools available to the masses, it's hard to imagine that someone somewhere would not be interested enough to study and detect such programs.  I've not seen it, but then I've not looked that hard either.

Going back to your suggestion that MKULTRA did exist 'but none of that shit really worked' I would say that this is simply unknown.  If the official story is to be believed, most of the records were destroyed.  It is an interesting subject generally for a variety of reasons, and it did seem to be a fairly long running and well funded program which in and of itself calls into question the assertion that none of it worked.  Where I go from here is to pay attention to some continuing similar research (e.g., being able to pull a graphical image of a face out of a person's thought patterns), and analyze the lives of some of the people who were known to have participated in some of the MKULTRA experiments such as Ken Kesey and Ted Kaczynski (aka, the unibomber.)

You need to take a little time to understand the basics of what a guy says before casting aspersion on his/her 'logic'.  Otherwise it's a strawman.  Obviously nobody is saying that all vaccinations have any particular effect.

What a lot of us are saying is that we may not be getting a complete and honest story about some of the things that some of the injection regimes are designed to achieve.  Here's another article with the same basic concerns.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-un-using-vaccines-to-secretly-sterilize-women-all-over-the-globe/5413599

I have zero difficulty believing that such programs exist, and only slightly less believing that the development effort would not have been undertaken without and intent to deploy it.  Only slightly less than that in believing that attempts at deployment have been undertaken from time to time here and there.

While a lot of people who, years later, ended up on bitcointalk.org were reading Ayn Rand I was reading Garrett Hardin's 'Lifeboat Ethics'.  I do have a better than par understanding of the ethical considerations associated with population.  Indeed, when nearly forced to pick from a list of about 200 'charities' to donate to 30 years ago, I choose 'Zero Population Growth.'  I have an understanding of how some people consider 'scientific' means of controlling population to be more ethical than, say, war or starvation, and I don't even necessarily disagree with them in principle.

I also understand how any means of population control be it laissez-faire or engineered can be parlayed into accumulation of wealth as long as it is at least predictable.  I've come to believe that those at the seats of power can and do use any and all of the generally possible population control methods for personal enrichment even while a vast majority probably do earnestly believe that they are using their unique wisdom and capabilities for the 'betterment' of humanity (or more generally, of the planet.)

Currently we have a situation where utter hog-wash 'scientific' arguments like 'global climate change' and spiritual feelings used as bedrock cornerstones are being sold to (aka, implanted) in the public mind to justify eugenics programs.  This makes me believe that the motives are at least as much about obtaining power and control as they are 'ethical' in an abstract manner.  It also contorts any operational efforts which will likely lead to a bad outcome.

Most people still rely on their generational line for security in old age.  Covertly sterilizing people is 'evil' for a lot of reasons, but one of the main ones is that it robs them of this potential.  The globalist new-agers might justify this in a belief that they are going to 'end poverty by 2030 world-wide' but it is entirely unclear that they will be able to achieve this.  OTOH, it is crystal clear to any thinking person that the only possible way to do this would be to massively de-populate the planet down to the 1/2 to 1 billion mark that their leaders love to toss around.  Anyone who actually believes this 'agenda-2030' hype is either to stupid to understand what is going on (most of them), or does see the big-picture and welcomes it.

Aliens might exist and might not exist at the same time that's why I choose maybe in the choices. There is a chance that alien life might not exist in this very vast universe of ours since scientist and NASA are not able to find one on their journeys to space and studying about it. It is also possible that maybe out there far away from us, there is another life or aliens, maybe other colonization that is also a human, but lives in another planet, one that is very far away from our own and we can't find it yet because universe is so wide and cannot all be explored for 5 years or even 10 years.