' The truth - We will go extinct, very soon.'
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Sunday, May 18, 2025 05:23
VIEWED: 65274
PAGE 5 of 68
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
If I were TRULY a Russian troll, I would have posted
Global warming is Russia's friend. It opens up vast swaths of Siberia and the Arctic Ocean to agricultural development, resource extraction, and transportation. While other nations will suffer from global warming, Russia will thrive. Russia does not allow GMO agriculture, therefore Russia does not bathe huge swaths of the environment with glyphosate. Russia does not depend on globalist banks to propel its development and therefore does not flog its industry for ever-expanding profits with which to pay ever-accumulating interest, therefore Russia's development is balanced and sustainable.
You did, just there, post it. You just made the argument that YOU are a Russian Troll.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I ALSO posted that I don't believe that it's true. You think that you demonstrated how "clever" you are? Nah... you just demonstrated that apparently that you can't stop lying, by trying to pin opinions on me that I don't agree with.
You did, just there, post it. You just made the argument that YOU are a Russian Troll.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you want to be absolutely correct, NOBODY should ever have been considered "communist" in the first place because "communism" never existed. "Communism" would be the stage after socialism - a perfect international worker's paradise. Since socialism never got to the "international" stage and the "paradise" part never happened either, I think we can eliminate "communism" from our vocabulary as a working model of anything (a little like "anarcho-libertarianism"). China is more socialist than Russia because the Chinese government owns a larger percentage of production facilities than the Russian government.
About the Russia vs US aspect uv this -
If you needed to put the blame on a single factor, money iz the obvious choise. It iz the real life Frankenstien monster. It iz wun uv the cornerstone inventionz that make sivilization possible, but it got out uv control and took over, spawning capitalizm and all the associated crappola thats gobbling up the planet.
I dont know - iz Russia still considered comunist? China iz, yet they hav at least az much capitalizm going on az we do.
But AFA money is concerned, I believe you're correct. Especially the creation of what they call "fiat currency" ... money which can be created in virtually unlimited quantities. Instead of being a medium of exchange, money became something that the banks could create out of thin air, and by loaning this thin-air money in massive amounts, banks were able to control the future.
What a mess.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Climate denial is insidious and well-financed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Climate denial is insidious and well-financed.- REAVERBOT
Of course it is. It runs counter to the very foundation of American influence: The petrodollar. Anyone who seriously tries to shake that pillar will be silenced, one way or another.
The speaker is a dick, and I don't believe his little story about the Antarctic scientist (The world was NOT 2 degrees hotter than now 55 thousand years ago, that was 55 MILLION years ago. Also, mass extinctions were recorded at the same time.) OR his little homily about the wisdom of investors and the honesty of brokers and bankers. And if you believe that a-hole, I have a bridge to sell you.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's a ton of these people.
A convenient debunking of every lie:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of my favorite YouTubers is Contrapoints. She combines incisive observation with twisted humor. Her take on climate change:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What inspired two philosophers of science to wade into misinformation?
O’Connor: I’ve been worried about climate change since I was 5 years old, and here we are 30 years later and still not doing anything about it. This is absolutely insane. It’s clear the marketplace of ideas isn’t working. We’ve allowed ourselves to be influenced by big oil and gas for over 30 years. But it was the 2016 election that prompted us. We just started writing it right after the election. We just sat down and said, What can we do, given our research skills, to improve this public crisis about false belief? . . .
O’Connor: We are often voting as if a matter of fact is true or not. We vote for someone who doesn’t believe in climate change and then act as if climate change is not true. That vote doesn’t change whether it’s true, and that vote doesn’t change whether we’re going to face the consequences of climate change. So the problem here is that matters of fact shouldn’t be settled by public vote. They should be settled by gathering evidence and using that evidence to feed into our best tools to figure out what’s true based on it.
Weatherall: Scientists disagree. They ought to disagree. If they weren’t criticizing one another, and disagreeing with one another, we wouldn’t have the grounds to trust the results of science the way that we do. But in cases where it looks as if scientists are disagreeing, it’s very easy for someone to say the jury is out, or the evidence isn’t clear. What often happens is that debates in scientific literature, in peer-reviewed journals, get settled. But then the debate will move to the newspapers and get explored on op-ed pages. It might be written by a scientist who’s doing the disagreeing. But there’s an illegitimacy to that. It reflects not sincere differences between people who are treating the evidence in the same way. It reflects a person who is no longer producing work of a sort that can meaningfully convince their peers of anything. So now they’re trying to convince people who are less equipped to evaluate it.
Weatherall: I had a fascinating conversation with the policymakers in the European Union about their ability to engage critically with science. What they said was, Look, we agree that a certain kind of critical reasoning is essential to having true and reliable beliefs. Unfortunately, we’re elected to represent particular groups and particular interests, and so we don’t get to question certain assumptions because our constituents don’t question those assumptions, and so wouldn’t vote for us. We wouldn’t be doing our representative job if we were questioning those assumptions.
Isn’t that a cop-out?
Weatherall: Yes, but let’s look at our institutions. Look at the way that they’re failing. I think we could still have democracy with institutions that are better engineered, that are developed in response to the ways in which our current institutions are failing. We have some states that have direct voting on referenda and ballot measures. We need to find democratic institutions that are sufficiently representative, that are responsive to citizens but aren’t simply aggregating the opinions and beliefs of the large group.
http://nautil.us/issue/69/patterns/why-misinformation-is-about-who-you
-trust-not-what-you-think
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Its odd that I know so many peepl hoo dont hav kidz. Its a little encourajing, but not enuf to make me optimistic. I woc Steve Wilkos every weekday and all the gests are plopping out babyz all the time.
All of my cousins and brothers came from families with anywhere from 2 to 5 siblings. There were 22 of us. At 40 years, I'm the oldest, and the youngest is somewhere around 23 by now I'd say. Combined, there are only 6 kids so far in the next generation.
One of my old friends has two kids (he had two sisters and a brother). About half of the rest of them have either 1 or zero kids.
I think it's kind of an "Idiocracy" thing. Most of these people are smart and did a lot of weighing things out. The people showing up on Steven Wilkos' show are idiots.
Although I do agree with and have supported food stamps and EIC payouts for children in these threads because I feel it's the only way to give unfortunate kids a leg up and try to keep them out of a life of crime, I do think we're going to have to start cutting that off at some point. Maybe make a HUGE deal about the fact that in 25 years they will be cut in half (adjusted for inflation) and in 50 years they won't exist anymore.
At the same time, provide birth control and contraceptives for free at schools. (I'm not a doctor, so maybe the birth control isn't good for young girls... but make it available to them when it is safe, anyhow).
I think the ones popping out a ton of kids were either born stupid or have really bad education. Once they've had one illegitimate kid early on in life there really isn't anything that's going to stop them from having 5 more. Maybe if they had proper sex ed in school and had the means to prevent having children provided to them for free and without judgement, they won't make a choice that will almost guaranty a bad future for them and any children they have?
Quote:
The GRaVMIL still failz to complete a sycle. I hav a few more ideaz taking shape in my brain, but havent regained enuf enthuziazm yet to try them.
GRaVMIL. I like it. :)
Did my suggestion to use the sun to get it over the hump provide any good data?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Welcome to socialism, comrade!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Its odd that I know so many peepl hoo dont hav kidz. Its a little encourajing, but not enuf to make me optimistic. I woc Steve Wilkos every weekday and all the gests are plopping out babyz all the time.
All of my cousins and brothers came from families with anywhere from 2 to 5 siblings. There were 22 of us. At 40 years, I'm the oldest, and the youngest is somewhere around 23 by now I'd say. Combined, there are only 6 kids so far in the next generation.
One of my old friends has two kids (he had two sisters and a brother). About half of the rest of them have either 1 or zero kids.
I think it's kind of an "Idiocracy" thing. Most of these people are smart and did a lot of weighing things out. The people showing up on Steven Wilkos' show are idiots.
Although I do agree with and have supported food stamps and EIC payouts for children in these threads because I feel it's the only way to give unfortunate kids a leg up and try to keep them out of a life of crime, I do think we're going to have to start cutting that off at some point. Maybe make a HUGE deal about the fact that in 25 years they will be cut in half (adjusted for inflation) and in 50 years they won't exist anymore.
At the same time, provide birth control and contraceptives for free at schools. (I'm not a doctor, so maybe the birth control isn't good for young girls... but make it available to them when it is safe, anyhow).
I think the ones popping out a ton of kids were either born stupid or have really bad education. Once they've had one illegitimate kid early on in life there really isn't anything that's going to stop them from having 5 more. Maybe if they had proper sex ed in school and had the means to prevent having children provided to them for free and without judgement, they won't make a choice that will almost guaranty a bad future for them and any children they have?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME