Look at the users profile picture, I do believe we have a celebrity poster on our hands!
Look at the users profile picture, I do believe we have a celebrity poster on our hands!
In an oligarchy you want to be part of the 1%.
In a democracy you want to be part of the 51%
Whoa be unto the 49%
Democracy by definition is oppression of the minority and that's often the opposite of peace.
My dad, a war hawk Republican who despises most Democrats will even tell you Carter is the best Ex-president in his life time, if not ever.
I have to agree. I detest quite a few things Carter the president did (it would be nice if we could recycle out nuclear fuel) but as a former president he's done some great stuff.
I never once attacked science. I'm a fan of science, I love science, the results of science, combined with a little I implement when problem solving, are how I make my living. It's how I've made my living since I've been making a living.
What I'm really attacking - and I've been pretty straight forward about it, is politics masquerading as science.
That was the point of the vaccine link I gave. You're the reactionary "if you don't agree with what's handed to you, you're a conspiracy theorist nut-job! who hates science!" type. I linked to that one to prove science isn't always what you're being handed.
Let me point out - a few years ago anyone who went around saying we would be forced to buy healthcare - AKA a breathing tax - in the United States was a tin-foil hat nutjob.
As recently as the early 80's anyone who talked about the secret government agency, the NSA, was a conspiracy whacko.
When did the existence of Area 51 finally become acceptable to believe in? 90's? 2000's? When was it built? Oh yeah, much earlier.
You're trying to label me as some moron who doesn't think vaccines work because I don't believe in science. In fact I do think many vaccines work, I think they've been very instrumental in wiping out Small Pox and saving us from a variety of other diseases. Is believing some of them aren't made in the safest manner, or believing some of them, like the Gardasil shot, are completely dangerous denying science? Have you seen the drug recall list by any chance?
So yeah, I don't think everything that's been blessed by the globalist "If we say it is good it is holy" mainstream "because it's science!" propaganda machine is true. If you wait long enough, the same propaganda machine often confirms what the conspiracy theorist say, when a drug gets recalled, a patsy takes a fall for false data, or a formula gets changed.
You're so blinded by your religion that anyone who actually has an open mind offends you and gets attacked as a non-believer.
So uhmmm, Wikipedia is a denier blog.
The New York Times is a denier blog, I thought it was a left wing propaganda machine.
As for Watts up with That? I generally referenced it for the collection of references. I don't actually read the site, I did a search for something mentioning the fact that records were altered. The one incident in particular I recall involved people actually getting information directly from a weather station's archives in Antarctica that disagreed with what NASA/NOAA published as what that very station said.
Nothing creates exceptions to the rule like an emergency.
If you don't have an emergency sometimes it pays to create one.
For those who see through the cloud, call them crazy, it will keep everyone else from paying attention to them. Then you can use the propaganda to control the people.
I'm a conservationist, I do believe we're generally screwing up the planet on which we live. I like doing "green" things. I try to minimize packaging, which goes right out the window when I order off the web, but still "family size" is my choice. I prefer as fuel efficient of a vehicle as I can get, for multitudes of reasons and can't wait for a chance at an Elio. I'm a cyclist when I can be. I try to minimize my pollution and foot print for the same reason the hippies say I should. Fortunately I have a wife who's really into natural cleaning products and what have you, we're shifting towards those, we were already doing less harmful stuff, but now she's making all sorts of household products. I admit to having mixed feelings towards some of those. I go non-GMO/organic as much as possible. I think doing these things makes sense. I think green energy, like wind and solar, when done properly, is the right thing to do for the environment and for capitalistic reasons, free fuel.
I think most climate alarmism is bullshit and it's being used to implement Agenda 21, which is not completely bad, but at it's core removes freedom when implemented through trickery and manipulation. I think there's a lot of great ideas with Agenda 21, I just don't like forcing them on people. There's some really bad ideas in there too. I don't like forcing those on people either. Yes, I do think the government would lie to us. If you don't I'm not the crazy one.
So once again I ask:
Should I always trust the results a scientist who's research is funded by someone with a financial interest in a particular outcome?
I wish more people would question those things and try to prove them one way or the other themselves. At least it would make for more interesting people to socialize with. I would rather have a friend that made their own high altitude balloon to reach the highest levels of atmosphere they could reach just so they could see the curvature of the earth for themselves than be surrounded by people who asked me if I saw Celebrity Apprentice last night.
So, if my questions are answered by someone who has financial interest in the answer given should all skepticism be put aside?
What happens when the historical records are altered to fit the modern imposed belief? But the science is settled. The science was settled when the global cooling scare of the 70's was settled science, we're in an ice-age already, right now. Then the global warming scare of the 90's was settled. New York City is underwater, right now. Now climate change is settled - I'm on-board with that.
Based on results like these, and other recent ones I've wondered if there's some back-door mod point action going on, or If I have a globalist cult following specifically me, coordinating their points together. I have pissed off a bunch of Apple fanboys, socialist and others of left wing persuasion, right wingers in general for not giving them their warhawk excuses and anti-freedom passes, and quite a few other groups. I may have daveloped an "operation clambake" type following.
Oh yeah, and just in case I haven't pissed off enough people:
SNES was the awesome system! The Genesis/Megadrive just felt clunky and cheesy!
Finally someone who gets it.
If you aren't questioning you aren't sciencing - it's called religion.
I'm wondering when they're going to start censoring.
I've been at least reading Slashdot, at least occasionally, since about 1997 or so? I've seen it change hands more than once. This latest owner is without a doubt taking a globalist posture. I know this due to the way the stuff that hits the front page are by default in agreement with the Third-Wave Feminist position on everything. Gamergate, women in STEM, the unquestioning stance on climate change and vaccines, the site has certainly taken a globalist stance since Cowboy Neil and Commander Taco are pretty much out of the picture and there's a media company behind it.
What hasn't changed is the very Libertarian approach to the comments section. I don't recall more than a few post ever getting censored on here, and most of that was due to legal threats (thanks Scientology!)
Unfortunately those with a globalist/authoritarian posture usually don't like their positions questioned, it's amazed me that Slashdot has kept it's comments formula for so long even with the changing of the guard. I fear this latest change may be the one that changes things, but so far it hasn't - other than the front page propaganda and increase in Slavertising.
On the other hand, the fact it has become an uncensored propaganda dispenser has put it in a very unique position of case-in-point commentary.
The Linux / Firefox combo is what I run at home also, I don't even have Flash installed on my Linux setup anymore.
I use a Mac / Firefox at work, I've got the "nag me to play" thing going on there, usually I don't okay it.
called for an end-of-life date on Flash, and wants Adobe to commit to it, yet they're one of the worst offenders for requiring Flash to play videos when h.264 and WebM exist......
At least in much of the United States?
NO! You must not demonstrate you don't have to have the government! You must not prove you don't need a plug back!
She's not the only protected politician on Slashdot, I love the way you get called crazy for pointing stuff like that out.
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton