| The purpose of the Church of Global Warming19-05-2018 21:16 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
What is the purpose behind the hysteria surrounding 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
These are two phrases that have no meaning outside of themselves. These are buzzwords. Ignoring this for the moment, what is the goal here? What are they really trying to accomplish?
The Church of Karl Marx has the answer, since the Church of Global Warming stems from this religion. It is the religion of Marxism.
To understand this, it is critical to understand Marxism and why it is a common belief today.
To fully appreciate Marxism, it is best to read his works. In a nutshell, however, Marxism is the argument to institute a 'classless' society, by taking from those that own the factories and other assets and giving them to the workers.
It is a denial of capitalism. It is socialism.
This kind of theft can't be instituted at once of course, the rejection would be violent and severe. Instead, the 'struggle' must be instituted slowly, like the camel nosing his way into the tent bit by bit.
Thus, the need to punish the rich, the big corporations, the private business owner.
The usual target for the Church of Global Warming is Big Oil, a collection of large corporations that explore for, drill, process, and sell oil based products such as gasoline and most plastics.
These companies are successful for one reason and one reason only. They sell products that we like to buy. This the same for all companies. They don't require us to buy anything from them at all. If one company doesn't produce what we want, we buy from their competitor.
In other words, they exist because society wants them to exist. No one has to buy products from any of these companies. They could always turn away completely and ride horses again and heat their houses using wood or other means, just like the 'good old days'. They can make all they own out of leather, textiles like cotton, flax, hemp, wood, and other non-petroleum products, but that means doing without the modern conveniences of cars, TV, and the internet (which depends on the oil industry to function).
To punish Big Oil because of CO2 that is produced when their products are burned is ridiculous. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
Similarly, to punish Big Agriculture because of the methane produced by cows is ridiculous. Methane, like CO2, has no capability to warm the Earth.
No, the first purpose of all of these attacks is to punish Big Industry (whatever it is), simply BECAUSE it's big. They look upon Big Industry as a faceless, soul-less, impersonal entity, filled with evil intent and greed.
But that industry is us.
Corporations like these are made up of individuals. These individuals either work for these companies directly, or invest in them. Each individual is a person. He has a face. He has a soul. He is an individual. He is a real person.
Like any real person, that person has needs. He wants to live comfortably. He wants to eat. He wants to make a profit (yes, I used profanity), so that he may not only survive, but do so comfortably.
A company that doesn't make a profit (I keep using that profane word...you're going to have to put up with it) is not going to last long. If it fails, there go all those jobs, all those investors, and all those products the company produced. Society is WORSE off because of the loss.
These companies all started from NOTHING but an idea and a realization that a desirable product could be produced. This is capitalism. It is the only system that can start with NOTHING and build a society and a civilization. It's what tamed the 'wild' west. It's what made the United States (and many other nations) the great nations they are. It's what built the cities out of the wilderness.
Socialism is theft. It attempts to steal from the rich and give to the poor. It attempts to transfer wealth from the productive members of society to the unproductive members of society.
The only way socialism can exist is by oligarchies and dictatorships. Both are brutal in their methods, for what they must accomplish in the end is theft.
I abhor the Church of Karl Marx and what it's trying to accomplish.
I abhor the Church of Global Warming for it's method of implementing Marxism.
The Earth is NOT in danger. It is quite big enough to take care of itself. All of the arguments about magick gases, the 'evidence' (science doesn't use supporting evidence, and most of the 'evidence' is manufactured hysteria), and the 'consensus' (science doesn't use consensus), are ALL designed to implement Marxism through the excuse of 'saving the planet'.
The planet doesn't need 'saving'. It's doing just fine. The only real danger is how popular socialism is becoming.
Wars start that way. The United States has never experienced a civil war. (The War of Secession was not a civil war.) Worse, this conflict is worldwide. While we have experienced world wars, the world has never experienced a worldwide civil war.
Yet I fear this is coming. The Wars of Marxism raise their ugly head yet again.
May God save us all.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-05-2018 01:47 |
monckton ★★★☆☆
(436) |
Into the Night wrote:To fully appreciate Marxism, it is best to read his works.
Hey, we hit some common ground, or is that ... commie ground eh? Ah!
Class 01 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBazR59SZXk
"Class 1 Introduction. An open course consisting of a close reading of the text of Volume I of Marx's Capital in 13 video lectures by Professor David Harvey. The page numbers Professor Harvey refers to are valid for both the Penguin Classics and Vintage Books editions of Capital."
"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
Edited on 20-05-2018 01:47 |
| 20-05-2018 21:09 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
What is the purpose behind the hysteria surrounding 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
These are two phrases that have no meaning outside of themselves. These are buzzwords. Ignoring this for the moment, what is the goal here? What are they really trying to accomplish?
The Church of Karl Marx has the answer, since the Church of Global Warming stems from this religion. It is the religion of Marxism.
To understand this, it is critical to understand Marxism and why it is a common belief today.
To fully appreciate Marxism, it is best to read his works. In a nutshell, however, Marxism is the argument to institute a 'classless' society, by taking from those that own the factories and other assets and giving them to the workers.
It is a denial of capitalism. It is socialism.
This kind of theft can't be instituted at once of course, the rejection would be violent and severe. Instead, the 'struggle' must be instituted slowly, like the camel nosing his way into the tent bit by bit.
Thus, the need to punish the rich, the big corporations, the private business owner.
The usual target for the Church of Global Warming is Big Oil, a collection of large corporations that explore for, drill, process, and sell oil based products such as gasoline and most plastics.
These companies are successful for one reason and one reason only. They sell products that we like to buy. This the same for all companies. They don't require us to buy anything from them at all. If one company doesn't produce what we want, we buy from their competitor.
In other words, they exist because society wants them to exist. No one has to buy products from any of these companies. They could always turn away completely and ride horses again and heat their houses using wood or other means, just like the 'good old days'. They can make all they own out of leather, textiles like cotton, flax, hemp, wood, and other non-petroleum products, but that means doing without the modern conveniences of cars, TV, and the internet (which depends on the oil industry to function).
To punish Big Oil because of CO2 that is produced when their products are burned is ridiculous. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
Similarly, to punish Big Agriculture because of the methane produced by cows is ridiculous. Methane, like CO2, has no capability to warm the Earth.
No, the first purpose of all of these attacks is to punish Big Industry (whatever it is), simply BECAUSE it's big. They look upon Big Industry as a faceless, soul-less, impersonal entity, filled with evil intent and greed.
But that industry is us.
Corporations like these are made up of individuals. These individuals either work for these companies directly, or invest in them. Each individual is a person. He has a face. He has a soul. He is an individual. He is a real person.
Like any real person, that person has needs. He wants to live comfortably. He wants to eat. He wants to make a profit (yes, I used profanity), so that he may not only survive, but do so comfortably.
A company that doesn't make a profit (I keep using that profane word...you're going to have to put up with it) is not going to last long. If it fails, there go all those jobs, all those investors, and all those products the company produced. Society is WORSE off because of the loss.
These companies all started from NOTHING but an idea and a realization that a desirable product could be produced. This is capitalism. It is the only system that can start with NOTHING and build a society and a civilization. It's what tamed the 'wild' west. It's what made the United States (and many other nations) the great nations they are. It's what built the cities out of the wilderness.
Socialism is theft. It attempts to steal from the rich and give to the poor. It attempts to transfer wealth from the productive members of society to the unproductive members of society.
The only way socialism can exist is by oligarchies and dictatorships. Both are brutal in their methods, for what they must accomplish in the end is theft.
I abhor the Church of Karl Marx and what it's trying to accomplish.
I abhor the Church of Global Warming for it's method of implementing Marxism.
The Earth is NOT in danger. It is quite big enough to take care of itself. All of the arguments about magick gases, the 'evidence' (science doesn't use supporting evidence, and most of the 'evidence' is manufactured hysteria), and the 'consensus' (science doesn't use consensus), are ALL designed to implement Marxism through the excuse of 'saving the planet'.
The planet doesn't need 'saving'. It's doing just fine. The only real danger is how popular socialism is becoming.
Wars start that way. The United States has never experienced a civil war. (The War of Secession was not a civil war.) Worse, this conflict is worldwide. While we have experienced world wars, the world has never experienced a worldwide civil war.
Yet I fear this is coming. The Wars of Marxism raise their ugly head yet again.
May God save us all.
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people. |
| 20-05-2018 21:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What is the purpose behind the hysteria surrounding 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
These are two phrases that have no meaning outside of themselves. These are buzzwords. Ignoring this for the moment, what is the goal here? What are they really trying to accomplish?
The Church of Karl Marx has the answer, since the Church of Global Warming stems from this religion. It is the religion of Marxism.
To understand this, it is critical to understand Marxism and why it is a common belief today.
To fully appreciate Marxism, it is best to read his works. In a nutshell, however, Marxism is the argument to institute a 'classless' society, by taking from those that own the factories and other assets and giving them to the workers.
It is a denial of capitalism. It is socialism.
This kind of theft can't be instituted at once of course, the rejection would be violent and severe. Instead, the 'struggle' must be instituted slowly, like the camel nosing his way into the tent bit by bit.
Thus, the need to punish the rich, the big corporations, the private business owner.
The usual target for the Church of Global Warming is Big Oil, a collection of large corporations that explore for, drill, process, and sell oil based products such as gasoline and most plastics.
These companies are successful for one reason and one reason only. They sell products that we like to buy. This the same for all companies. They don't require us to buy anything from them at all. If one company doesn't produce what we want, we buy from their competitor.
In other words, they exist because society wants them to exist. No one has to buy products from any of these companies. They could always turn away completely and ride horses again and heat their houses using wood or other means, just like the 'good old days'. They can make all they own out of leather, textiles like cotton, flax, hemp, wood, and other non-petroleum products, but that means doing without the modern conveniences of cars, TV, and the internet (which depends on the oil industry to function).
To punish Big Oil because of CO2 that is produced when their products are burned is ridiculous. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.
Similarly, to punish Big Agriculture because of the methane produced by cows is ridiculous. Methane, like CO2, has no capability to warm the Earth.
No, the first purpose of all of these attacks is to punish Big Industry (whatever it is), simply BECAUSE it's big. They look upon Big Industry as a faceless, soul-less, impersonal entity, filled with evil intent and greed.
But that industry is us.
Corporations like these are made up of individuals. These individuals either work for these companies directly, or invest in them. Each individual is a person. He has a face. He has a soul. He is an individual. He is a real person.
Like any real person, that person has needs. He wants to live comfortably. He wants to eat. He wants to make a profit (yes, I used profanity), so that he may not only survive, but do so comfortably.
A company that doesn't make a profit (I keep using that profane word...you're going to have to put up with it) is not going to last long. If it fails, there go all those jobs, all those investors, and all those products the company produced. Society is WORSE off because of the loss.
These companies all started from NOTHING but an idea and a realization that a desirable product could be produced. This is capitalism. It is the only system that can start with NOTHING and build a society and a civilization. It's what tamed the 'wild' west. It's what made the United States (and many other nations) the great nations they are. It's what built the cities out of the wilderness.
Socialism is theft. It attempts to steal from the rich and give to the poor. It attempts to transfer wealth from the productive members of society to the unproductive members of society.
The only way socialism can exist is by oligarchies and dictatorships. Both are brutal in their methods, for what they must accomplish in the end is theft.
I abhor the Church of Karl Marx and what it's trying to accomplish.
I abhor the Church of Global Warming for it's method of implementing Marxism.
The Earth is NOT in danger. It is quite big enough to take care of itself. All of the arguments about magick gases, the 'evidence' (science doesn't use supporting evidence, and most of the 'evidence' is manufactured hysteria), and the 'consensus' (science doesn't use consensus), are ALL designed to implement Marxism through the excuse of 'saving the planet'.
The planet doesn't need 'saving'. It's doing just fine. The only real danger is how popular socialism is becoming.
Wars start that way. The United States has never experienced a civil war. (The War of Secession was not a civil war.) Worse, this conflict is worldwide. While we have experienced world wars, the world has never experienced a worldwide civil war.
Yet I fear this is coming. The Wars of Marxism raise their ugly head yet again.
May God save us all.
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-05-2018 21:51 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything. If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology. It's not my problem that when it comes to science that you are ignorant. Since you know nothing then you can't understand something if another person tries to explain it to you. I don't waste my time on such individuals. |
|
| 20-05-2018 22:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything.
Yes you do. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James___ wrote:
If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology.
...deleted usual insults...
No, it's because YOU refuse to define them.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-05-2018 01:08 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything.
Yes you do. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James___ wrote:
If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology.
...deleted usual insults...
No, it's because YOU refuse to define them.
ITN,
..You've already posted that you're a teacher in here, teach. |
| 21-05-2018 08:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything.
Yes you do. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James___ wrote:
If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology.
...deleted usual insults...
No, it's because YOU refuse to define them.
ITN,
..You've already posted that you're a teacher in here, teach.
Still trying to evade? Why don't you attempt to define either 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-05-2018 17:02 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything.
Yes you do. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James___ wrote:
If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology.
...deleted usual insults...
No, it's because YOU refuse to define them.
ITN,
..You've already posted that you're a teacher in here, teach.
Still trying to evade? Why don't you attempt to define either 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
I am evading nothing. I am not a teacher and I am not your student. Is there a reason why I should do what you yourself won't do or attempt ? |
| 21-05-2018 20:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
Into the Night wrote:
You think so?
Let's start at the beginning. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzword...meaningless...until you define them.
...I don't have to define anything.
Yes you do. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James___ wrote:
If they are meaningless buzzwords to you it's because you've never taken the time to learn anything but psychology.
...deleted usual insults...
No, it's because YOU refuse to define them.
ITN,
..You've already posted that you're a teacher in here, teach.
Still trying to evade? Why don't you attempt to define either 'global warming' or 'climate change'?
I am evading nothing. I am not a teacher and I am not your student. Is there a reason why I should do what you yourself won't do or attempt ?
Contextomy. Since you refuse to define either 'global warming' or 'climate change', they remain buzzwords...meaningless.
QED
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-05-2018 20:12 |
| 21-05-2018 23:13 |
RenaissanceMan★☆☆☆☆
(105) |
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change. |
| 21-05-2018 23:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Well observed. You know liberals better than they know themselves.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-05-2018 02:27 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
...Maybe if he says something worth commenting on I'll give it a thought. Until then...... |
| 22-05-2018 02:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
...Maybe if he says something worth commenting on I'll give it a thought. Until then......
...bulverism.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-05-2018 04:42 |
monckton★★★☆☆
(436) |
I'll be honest, I'm sleeping like a baby listening to this series.
I hope there's a chapter at the end about automation and robots.
Class 02 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww |
|
| 22-05-2018 05:51 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
monckton wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm sleeping like a baby listening to this series.
I hope there's a chapter at the end about automation and robots.
Class 02 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww
...I'm going to watch it. Downloading it at the library. I have read Atlas Shrugged. From that pretext I'd say that Wake and itn think they should be in control even though they have nothing of value to contribute. In Atlas Shrugged they tried stopping Reardon alloy by saying it was dangerous. That's about like Wake calling people Nazis and itn accusing people of being Marxists if people don't agree with them.
..Yet what was the question everyone was asking ?
......Who is John Gault ? |
| 22-05-2018 07:25 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
monckton wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm sleeping like a baby listening to this series.
I hope there's a chapter at the end about automation and robots.
Class 02 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww
I also have to be honest. Thanks to you I no longer need to take Zquil... I've got your videos. |
| 22-05-2018 07:38 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo! |
| 22-05-2018 17:38 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does. |
| 22-05-2018 17:46 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
monckton wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm sleeping like a baby listening to this series.
I hope there's a chapter at the end about automation and robots.
Class 02 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww
...Why does itn sound like that lecturer ? Einstein pointed out something that Marx missed. Einstein said that America had the best ratio of population to resources which created more value for Americans.
...What's been missed is that about 1/2 of the patents in the U.S. goes to immigrants.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/immigrants-are-crucial-to-us-economic-growth
..This is where I am the son of an immigrant while itn is not. Going by the numbers I'm pursuing opportunity while itn is pursuing political goals. After all, I am a Marxist if I disagree with him. And wake states that I am a Nazi if I do not agree with him. itn also claims that Norwegians are ignorant. He made this known when he supported wake's claims to that exact effect.
...Unfortunately science isn't a political tool until someone uses it in that vein. Both itn and wake have used that reasoning to support their arguments such as what that lecturer said that Marx used. And if you can't prove someone's argument wrong, or choose not to, do you have to accept it ? You don't. Both itn and wake are a waste of time but I think people like GasGuzzler like watching useless debate because it's like watching reality tv. |
| 22-05-2018 17:56 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time. |
| 22-05-2018 18:38 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time.
...I stand on my own 2 feet. My opinions are my own. I have my own concerns which are not political. Yet you and your friends wish to politicize or police any discussion according to your own political beliefs. That is wrong of you..
..Then it can now be known why itn claims to be a teacher and claims to have the authority over others so that he might correct them. He has repeatedly posted that when people accept his "lecturing" that it is then they will be thinking for themselves. Do you notice the condition that he places on independent thought ? It needs to be in agreement with what he believes.
..This means that he desires to control others to promote his own political beliefs while understanding nothing of climate change, it's causes, effects or the science that allows it to be understood. After all, neither he nor you nor wake can show where I've said that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Yet I am accused of supporting that belief.
...itn should desire to claim no authority over myself, my opinions or other people and their opinions as well. This violates people's rights as individuals.
Edited on 22-05-2018 18:41 |
| 22-05-2018 20:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm sleeping like a baby listening to this series.
I hope there's a chapter at the end about automation and robots.
Class 02 Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwuMrd_Hgww
...Why does itn sound like that lecturer ? Einstein pointed out something that Marx missed. Einstein said that America had the best ratio of population to resources which created more value for Americans.
...What's been missed is that about 1/2 of the patents in the U.S. goes to immigrants.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/immigrants-are-crucial-to-us-economic-growth
..This is where I am the son of an immigrant while itn is not. Going by the numbers I'm pursuing opportunity while itn is pursuing political goals. After all, I am a Marxist if I disagree with him. And wake states that I am a Nazi if I do not agree with him. itn also claims that Norwegians are ignorant. He made this known when he supported wake's claims to that exact effect.
Feeling paranoid again?
James___ wrote:
...Unfortunately science isn't a political tool until someone uses it in that vein.
Science is never a political tool. Science simply is.
James___ wrote:
Both itn and wake have used that reasoning to support their arguments
Why not? You deny science.
James___ wrote:
such as what that lecturer said that Marx used.
Karl Marx did not use science.
James___ wrote:
And if you can't prove someone's argument wrong, or choose not to, do you have to accept it ?
You might ask yourself why you can't prove someone's argument wrong.
James___ wrote:
You don't.
This is a fallacy known as the argument of the Stone.
James___ wrote:
Both itn and wake are a waste of time but I think people like GasGuzzler like watching useless debate because it's like watching reality tv.
So science is a 'waste of time' for you, eh?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-05-2018 20:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time.
...I stand on my own 2 feet.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
My opinions are my own.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
I have my own concerns which are not political.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
Yet you and your friends wish to politicize or police any discussion according to your own political beliefs. That is wrong of you..
So only YOUR political beliefs count, eh?
James___ wrote:
..Then it can now be known why itn claims to be a teacher
Actually, I am. Among my other activities, I teach a variety of subjects including physics, electronics, programming, aviation, meteorology, etc.
James___ wrote:
and claims to have the authority over others so that he might correct them.
Nope. Your beliefs are yours. They are wrong, but they are yours.
James___ wrote:
He has repeatedly posted that when people accept his "lecturing" that it is then they will be thinking for themselves.
WRONG. You reject philosophy and figure that a valid reference is some random web site that happens to agree with your religion.
James___ wrote:
Do you notice the condition that he places on independent thought ?
Thought? That's a problem? Why don't you try it sometime?
James___ wrote:
It needs to be in agreement with what he believes.
No, but it should at least make sense, and you should understand the reason for your thought process.
James___ wrote:
..This means that he desires to control others
Nope. This is what YOU want to do. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
to promote his own political beliefs
So only YOUR political beliefs are valid?
James___ wrote:
while understanding nothing of climate change,
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzwords. There is nothing to understand about them beyond that.
James___ wrote:
it's causes,
Buzzword are meaningless. They have no cause.
James___ wrote:
effects
Buzzwords are meaningless. They have no effects.
James___ wrote:
or the science
There is no theory of science about buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
that allows it to be understood.
A buzzword is meaningless. There nothing to understand.
James___ wrote:
After all, neither he nor you nor wake can show where I've said that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Yet I am accused of supporting that belief.
Because you do.
James___ wrote:
...itn should desire to claim no authority over myself, my opinions or other people and their opinions as well. This violates people's rights as individuals.
Only you have authority over your opinions. They are wrong, and they deny science, but that simply means only YOU are at fault for that.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-05-2018 01:42 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time.
...I stand on my own 2 feet.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
My opinions are my own.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
I have my own concerns which are not political.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
Yet you and your friends wish to politicize or police any discussion according to your own political beliefs. That is wrong of you..
So only YOUR political beliefs count, eh?
James___ wrote:
..Then it can now be known why itn claims to be a teacher
Actually, I am. Among my other activities, I teach a variety of subjects including physics, electronics, programming, aviation, meteorology, etc.
James___ wrote:
and claims to have the authority over others so that he might correct them.
Nope. Your beliefs are yours. They are wrong, but they are yours.
James___ wrote:
He has repeatedly posted that when people accept his "lecturing" that it is then they will be thinking for themselves.
WRONG. You reject philosophy and figure that a valid reference is some random web site that happens to agree with your religion.
James___ wrote:
Do you notice the condition that he places on independent thought ?
Thought? That's a problem? Why don't you try it sometime?
James___ wrote:
It needs to be in agreement with what he believes.
No, but it should at least make sense, and you should understand the reason for your thought process.
James___ wrote:
..This means that he desires to control others
Nope. This is what YOU want to do. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
to promote his own political beliefs
So only YOUR political beliefs are valid?
James___ wrote:
while understanding nothing of climate change,
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzwords. There is nothing to understand about them beyond that.
James___ wrote:
it's causes,
Buzzword are meaningless. They have no cause.
James___ wrote:
effects
Buzzwords are meaningless. They have no effects.
James___ wrote:
or the science
There is no theory of science about buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
that allows it to be understood.
A buzzword is meaningless. There nothing to understand.
James___ wrote:
After all, neither he nor you nor wake can show where I've said that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Yet I am accused of supporting that belief.
Because you do.
James___ wrote:
...itn should desire to claim no authority over myself, my opinions or other people and their opinions as well. This violates people's rights as individuals.
Only you have authority over your opinions. They are wrong, and they deny science, but that simply means only YOU are at fault for that.
...just more rhetoric from itn. all of it meaningless diatribe.
di·a·tribe
ˈdīəˌtrīb
noun
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. |
| 23-05-2018 05:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time.
...I stand on my own 2 feet.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
My opinions are my own.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
I have my own concerns which are not political.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
Yet you and your friends wish to politicize or police any discussion according to your own political beliefs. That is wrong of you..
So only YOUR political beliefs count, eh?
James___ wrote:
..Then it can now be known why itn claims to be a teacher
Actually, I am. Among my other activities, I teach a variety of subjects including physics, electronics, programming, aviation, meteorology, etc.
James___ wrote:
and claims to have the authority over others so that he might correct them.
Nope. Your beliefs are yours. They are wrong, but they are yours.
James___ wrote:
He has repeatedly posted that when people accept his "lecturing" that it is then they will be thinking for themselves.
WRONG. You reject philosophy and figure that a valid reference is some random web site that happens to agree with your religion.
James___ wrote:
Do you notice the condition that he places on independent thought ?
Thought? That's a problem? Why don't you try it sometime?
James___ wrote:
It needs to be in agreement with what he believes.
No, but it should at least make sense, and you should understand the reason for your thought process.
James___ wrote:
..This means that he desires to control others
Nope. This is what YOU want to do. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
to promote his own political beliefs
So only YOUR political beliefs are valid?
James___ wrote:
while understanding nothing of climate change,
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzwords. There is nothing to understand about them beyond that.
James___ wrote:
it's causes,
Buzzword are meaningless. They have no cause.
James___ wrote:
effects
Buzzwords are meaningless. They have no effects.
James___ wrote:
or the science
There is no theory of science about buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
that allows it to be understood.
A buzzword is meaningless. There nothing to understand.
James___ wrote:
After all, neither he nor you nor wake can show where I've said that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Yet I am accused of supporting that belief.
Because you do.
James___ wrote:
...itn should desire to claim no authority over myself, my opinions or other people and their opinions as well. This violates people's rights as individuals.
Only you have authority over your opinions. They are wrong, and they deny science, but that simply means only YOU are at fault for that.
...just more rhetoric from itn. all of it meaningless diatribe.
di·a·tribe
ˈdīəˌtrīb
noun
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Paranoia again.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 24-05-2018 16:01 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
...Does this mean you agree with itn ? It does.
Yes, I agree with everything in his original post. You might take a hard look at it again and see how you are playing right into the hands of the Marxists, one tiny increment (excrement?) at a time.
...I stand on my own 2 feet.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
My opinions are my own.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
I have my own concerns which are not political.
Bull.
James___ wrote:
Yet you and your friends wish to politicize or police any discussion according to your own political beliefs. That is wrong of you..
So only YOUR political beliefs count, eh?
James___ wrote:
..Then it can now be known why itn claims to be a teacher
Actually, I am. Among my other activities, I teach a variety of subjects including physics, electronics, programming, aviation, meteorology, etc.
James___ wrote:
and claims to have the authority over others so that he might correct them.
Nope. Your beliefs are yours. They are wrong, but they are yours.
James___ wrote:
He has repeatedly posted that when people accept his "lecturing" that it is then they will be thinking for themselves.
WRONG. You reject philosophy and figure that a valid reference is some random web site that happens to agree with your religion.
James___ wrote:
Do you notice the condition that he places on independent thought ?
Thought? That's a problem? Why don't you try it sometime?
James___ wrote:
It needs to be in agreement with what he believes.
No, but it should at least make sense, and you should understand the reason for your thought process.
James___ wrote:
..This means that he desires to control others
Nope. This is what YOU want to do. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
to promote his own political beliefs
So only YOUR political beliefs are valid?
James___ wrote:
while understanding nothing of climate change,
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. These are just buzzwords. There is nothing to understand about them beyond that.
James___ wrote:
it's causes,
Buzzword are meaningless. They have no cause.
James___ wrote:
effects
Buzzwords are meaningless. They have no effects.
James___ wrote:
or the science
There is no theory of science about buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
that allows it to be understood.
A buzzword is meaningless. There nothing to understand.
James___ wrote:
After all, neither he nor you nor wake can show where I've said that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Yet I am accused of supporting that belief.
Because you do.
James___ wrote:
...itn should desire to claim no authority over myself, my opinions or other people and their opinions as well. This violates people's rights as individuals.
Only you have authority over your opinions. They are wrong, and they deny science, but that simply means only YOU are at fault for that.
...just more rhetoric from itn. all of it meaningless diatribe.
di·a·tribe
ˈdīəˌtrīb
noun
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something.
Paranoia again.
...I wonder if anyone besides myself finds it queer (strange or odd) that someone claims to be debating climate change when they lack the ability to define what climate is from their perspective. |
| 24-05-2018 20:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
...I wonder if anyone besides myself finds it queer (strange or odd) that someone claims to be debating climate change when they lack the ability to define what climate is from their perspective.
Apparently not. The Church of Global Warming does that all the time.
You cannot define what 'climate change' means, but you are convinced 'it' (whatever 'it' is) is happening.
You worship a buzzword.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 25-05-2018 02:37 |
RenaissanceMan★☆☆☆☆
(105) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
James___ wrote:
...You are really confused itn. It's no wonder you can't discuss something rationally with other people.
ITN's post was as rational as it could possibly be. It is for that reason that you did not refute a single word of it, but instead attacked the messenger. This is classical left-wing condescension, pretension, dishonesty, and pettiness. It is disgraceful, but you leftists never tire of it, you never change.
Nice shot! Bingo!
Thank you, Friend. You and me against a conference room full of professors.
Bring 'em on. |