Dr. Nick Nasty

The Beginning of Political Wisdom is the realization that despite what you've always been told, the government is not on your side. It is out to get you.-Robert Higgs

__________________

Galt

Fair 'nuf. Done with my union bash.

____________________ __________________

Being a devout member of the First Holy Church of Everyfuckinthing is a Conspiracy, I thought I'd expand upon the why and how's that we've gotten this far down the shitter without a revolution. Two things principally, distractions and education.

With regard to education, obviously if you can keep majority generations of urban dwellers disengaged from the whole pursuit of happiness thing, and preoccupied with day to day survival, they aren't going to be much of a problem to keep down on the plantation. This is especially true if you can condition them into a state where their lives revolve around waiting for Massa to pass out the essentials for their continued existence. Implement the Willie Lynch/Sun Tzu Divide and Conquer Paradigm to keep them from unifying, and throw them a bone every once in a while (like a little false hope for change in the form of a Black POTUS) just to help keep them alive, and in line. Hegemony does require a significant amount of human fodder to keep the machine fed, so they're always going to be necessary - especially as the middle class is destroyed, and with it their other main source of patriotic suckers and true believers.

That same middle class of course may be a bit more difficult to dissuade from trying to seek success through education, so let's start by making the path so extremely cost prohibitive that anybody with some basic math skills will begin to realize that continued effort is futile. The idea of taking on a debt that will consume a decade of production after graduation should be disheartening enough to crush their spirit. And if that isn't enough, just make sure that there's no place for them to make any money even if the wanted to... unless it's working for the machine of course. On the outside chance that their parents might have the means to pay for it themselves, a quick flip of the Fed button and a couple bubble pops should be enough to wipe out any opportunity on that front. Not enough to make them all wards of the state just yet, but enough to scare the fuck out of them and vaporize their lives' savings. Then the whole borrow to learn thing goes away as well.

All along the way the system relies on the lemmings only following the lead of the false prophets and pseudo leaders of the divide and conquer plan, so there does need to be a means of quickly limiting the standard deviation and managing to keep the data points as close as possible. In other words - the only Kennedy's allowed to stand out shall be dead ones or discredited drunks. The proud nail always gets hammered, and don't let Dr. King forget it.

The insurance that allows an easily manged series of closely compacted data points is a state run education mill that teaches nothing of any real practical use or truth, supported and run by a group that can be kept tied closely to the machine to allow their constant and continued subjugation without pause. We'll call this the teachers union. When people look back at WWII Germany, and wonder how it was that the Nazi's were able to suspend their humanity and kill all of the people that were straight up murdered, they need look no further than the Milgram Experiment and our present day teachers unions' blind obedience to their believed benefactor, the Democratic Party. The social democrat thing was probably just a coincidence right?

This of course will allow the simple and continued dumbing down to commence unabated. Over successive decades and generations the depth and scope of critical thinking skills will be reduced to nothing more than a series of rote mnemonic chants. As seen and proudly touted on the Okra Show (another false prophet of hope and change):

Flocabulary - Educational Hip-Hop

The use of these memory tricks to create a semblance of learning should suffice until the ultimately retarded literacy levels take hold, and even the teachers are all to dumb to teach anything of value. (see teachers union job protections for retards and child abusers). Since a thorough understanding of history and economics will doubtless only fuel curiosity among the most extreme deviant data points, it is helpful to distance the two, and where possible, teach little or none of both. This is of course greatly simplified if basic math skills (required for functional literacy in statistics), and basic language skills (speaking, reading and writing a common language), are never imparted. Given the opportunities presented with the current educational funding and unassailable nature of the machine, curricula manipulations can also be managed on an effective and annual basis. By gradually but persistently changing text and reference materials, subjects in the humanities may be more readily molded to suit the desired learning outcomes. Revisionist history and studies supportive of the divide and conquer theology (African American studies, Women's Studies, et al,) will of course prove paramount in this effort. This will also allow the development of successively more and more clueless even amongst the "educated" (a quick quiz of the people at your local bank about the Feral Reserve should prove this unequivocally - they work as an integral cog in the fiat scrip market every day, and yet know nothing of the Fed beyond that it exists - how can that logically be?).


Regarding the distraction quotient in the formula, consider the Roman Empire, its rise and fall - and what part the construction of the Coliseum played.

Now this is by no means meant to represent the entirety of tools employed to keep people from looking behind the curtain, but they are among the simplest to understand. Organized and professional sport and entertainment. Consider the ridiculously huge part that mass media plays in our daily lives, particularly amongst the young. How many are typically observed out and about, when not plugged into their Xbox, Wii or Play Station, with the ever present ear buds between them and the world surrounding them? Observe the preoccupation with such deep thoughts as "what are Brad and Jen up to?" or "When does the next episode of Harry Potter or Twilight come out"?

So let's move on to the adult diversions. The U.S. is pretty simple - NFL, NBA, MLB for starters. Then add the full gambit of collegiate and periphery sports and you have a full time, year round menu of distractions that not only keep the spectators from engaging in any meaningful interaction with each other, but they also work to further support the whole divide and conquer premise (as Egypt recently experienced at the soccer match). To help magnify this, a culture of socially reinforced substance abuse is engendered as an integral part of the whole experience. This assures that the time before (spent drinking and tailgating) and the time after (spent sleeping it off or dealing with the hazy dead brain cell hang over period) is also noteworthy for the "free time" that it wastes. Through the compounding of economic pressures (inflation, unemployment and ever heavier taxation) the balance of time can be conscripted to working longer and harder to maintain basic necessities of life. Just think for a moment - how many people do you know who willfully disengage from the reality of what their governments are up to, in favor of sticking their head up their ass by getting drunk and watching some sort of ball game... when they aren't stuck at work?

Sounds a little too well scripted and coincidental you say? Well consider this - why are the major sports leagues all exempted from anti-trust and fair trade laws and regulation? Why were they granted this rather significant reward? I'm sure that more people use gasoline than watch even the NFL, so why would Exxon not be exempt, but the NFL is? Monopolies aren't any good for competition, but generally they can be very beneficial to consumers by allowing the monopoly to realize larger profits through greater economy of scale and reduced marketing expenditures. Just think how cheap gasoline might be if we allowed Standard Oil to re-consolidate. I'm not seriously suggesting this, just juxtaposing it to the sports example for clarity.

When you add bullshit like the 100 wars that we keep juggling, the whole Republican vs. Democrat/Liberal vs. Conservative thing, racial discrimination and now reverse discrimination, homophobia, terror phobia, Muslim phobia, Latino phobia, bird flu, fungal orange juice, Global Warming bullshit, imagined Iranian nukes, is it any wonder that the REAL news gets completely obscured and lost in the sauce? I contend that the vast majority of this is by design and not coincidence or some happenstance sign of our modern times.

People need to focus on the core of what has brought us here, and what is pushing us further and further over the edge, and that is the control of our economy by those that control our currency - the owners of the Feral Reserve and its counterparts in Europe. If reading and thinking give you a headache, just look at the pictures.

Demonocracy.info - Economic Infographics

In the broke ass world of idiocracy, shit like health care, education, sports and wars aren't going to mean much when your whole day is consumed by trying to find something to eat. Welcome to the new millennium, where food and potable water may just be the new currency.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

K10

The sheer ignorance of claiming global warming is bullshit de-validates pretty much everything else you have to say. As someone who works in ecology and has worked on numerous climatology/climate change research ventures it's pretty depressing to be reminded that anyone thinks that.

__________________
Just because you tie dye your wool, doesn't mean
you're not a sheep.
R.I.P. Alice D.

wellfleation

Yeah, what an ass-hole.

Where the fuck is the "Thanks" button?

__________________
FIGHTPOWER

stoneric

Nah, not an asshole. We disagree on shit but we want the same end result. Same with you.

Galt

Lemme guess, your ventures were funded by grant dough that originated from some body or organization with an agenda, so like good little drones you applied nothing but the purest scientific methods I'm sure, 'cuz that's how you keep the grant tit funding.

Sorry, I spent enough blood sweat and tears trying to save the planet after the same solid science warned us all that we were gonna run out'a air and water and soil and food and whatever the fuck else they could think of to push their agenda. Nice to know not much has changed.

The very technology that creates the problems ultimately allows us to develop the cures. Nobody wants to destroy the fucking planet, except possibly the socialists that have no concern for rule of law (read up on tragedy of the commons). It's pretty amazing that even the Chi-coms newest super computer still hasn't been able to master that weather modeling thing, but you and Al got it all figured out.

It's great that you care, and it's great that you want to do something positive, but please try and find a productive way to contribute other than wasting OPM to tell us the sky is falling. The failure of such "ventures" is usually in their failure to block confounding variables, mainly 'cuz it doesn't suit their desired correlations. If the balance of study had any real integrity or significance there'd be something to debate. I would suspect that someone making money off of the premise is much more likely to insist there's a problem than someone who's not... and so far, everybody that I've heard cry "We're Melting!" has been somebody who's pocketing some coin off of it. I give you Mr. Gore as exhibit A-Z. If you'd like to discuss the integrity represented by his bullshit hypocrisy, by all means...

Besides, you need to get up to speed with the rest of the nut club, they had to quit calling it Global Warming after the 2nd or 3rd data manipulation scam blew up in their faces, didn't you get the memo? Now the just call it "Climate Change", which is absolutely horrifying 'cuz as we all know... one thing weather never does is change!

You have got to be fucking kidding! Global fucking warming? Might also wanna check those charts for Middle Earth there since the start of around the Dark Ages. I'm afraid the current vetted science is that we're actually in a cooling period. Sorry. Maybe you can get a job with TSA or HLS. They too thrive and make money off of trying to gin up a good scare.

Fodder for another thread, but have you ever actually looked at what a total crock of shit most of the "peer reviewed" papers were that were the basis for those claims? Unfortunately it's not relegated to only the weather debate, but you have to be smart enough to realize that any study that bases its work on somebody elses empirical data is always going to be suspect, and unless you are with NASA or NOAA, I doubt your venture had the independent resources to do anything meaningful, just cut, paste, extrapolate and interpolate other peoples' flawed correlations. Just a hunch but I'm bettin' you proved exactly what you set out to prove, like good little Gorians.

Hope ya got rich beotch. Al sure as fuck did!

My bias aside, I am always willing to read, so if you've got something that you feel is compelling evidence that I'm full of shit, by all means - please cite away. Wouldn't be the first time that I've tasted foot. The whole "movement" lost me for good with the NOAA data station scam. Budget cuts led to stations being shut down, and the majority that were thought to be more cost effective to maintain were those closest to areas of more dense population. Uhhhh, where do ya think it might be warmer, down the street from masses of impermeable surfaces that are so significant that THEY HAVE been proven to effect their own weather, or out on the permafrost? That's somewhat of an over statement, but not by much. The modeling that gained so much air play, and subsequent repeated citation without vetting, was based on terribly flawed data involving confounding variables that it must be argued, were purposely not blocked. I say purposely because even the dopiest asshole of an earth science major had to at least take one statistics class, and in that you learn that correlations based on those variables are the most likely wrong and statistically least relevant... but hey, why break up a good con over something as simple as bad math?

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Galt

Well buddy, nice of you to contribute something to the conversation.
Okay , maybe not, since the opine on the body part I most resemble is hardly ground breaking thought. That is what you were doing wasn't it. Ya started tryin' to think of something glib to smack me down with and came up with ass hole. Very nice. Here, lemme get that Thanks button for ya...

I enjoy debating ideas. I state mine in a very strong, and oft ass hole-ish fashion I am aware, but at least have the decency to offer some sort of cogent argument if you don't agree. I'll argue and debate with ya like mad - but it's not intended as personal, just smart assed. I prefer not to get too shitty personal unless I sense someone else has no compunction in that regard. I figure we must have more in common than not, or we wouldn't be in this forum to start with.

Nobody ever changes their mind 'cuz ya call 'em a name or yell louder. If ya think I'm the special ed kid, how about a little pity on the retarded guy. Take the time to try and persuade me that I'm wrong. I already know that I'm an ass hole.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

K10

Where do people get these ideas that scientists are pulling in money to study and compile false climate change information? What purpose does that serve? Raw data has no bias. All we can do is observe and analyze. The assumption that climate change is a false premise relies on the idea that scientists are the greedy arm of someone attempting to manipulate society. Falsification of data etc., is something that goes against the very basic tenets of science. I assure you that there is very little money involved in much of the best environmental research going on right now, and furthermore it is being conducted by people who are passionate about what they do and would never put forth bad information as good science.
The other thing that really irks me about this line of thinking is that from a standpoint of corporate profit it is very important that the general populace stays at best skeptical of climate change. If the majority actually whole-heatedly believed the numbers then it wouldn't be damn near impossible to work on comprehensive environmental policy.
Scientists compile data and say,"hey guys, this doesn't look so good." Then the corporations send there lobbyists to Washington to whisper into the ears of the politicians that scientists are untrustworthy and that they must be allowed to pollute all they want for the "good of America."
The general response by scientists getting hit with these claims are "where is the money?" Who is dealing out this money and why don't I have any? It's not a good con and there is no subversion and there is no profit in it. Statistical errors happen, so what? You simply cannot trust anything scientific because of the potential of confounding variables? Why on this subject do you choose to blindly follow the United States government and their corporate masters when you so vehemently disagree with them on everything else?
Denial of climate change serves no one but the industries who do not wish to be regulated and the governments who take their money with open hands.
No one is getting rich on climate change except politicians who deny it and somehow Al Gore managed to get on that boat too. Not sure how, his movie was absolute drivel that really just hurt things anyway.
The money isn't there and that premise doesn't add up. If a scientist wanted to make a lot of money, all they would have to do is deny climate change. Oh yeah.....like this guy. Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real  - NY Daily News

Basically, what I'm saying here is that at ground level millions of dollars is going into disproving climate change but that money isn't flowing the other way.

__________________
Just because you tie dye your wool, doesn't mean
you're not a sheep.
R.I.P. Alice D.

Galt

Try to appreciate that I make a sincere effort to restrict my opinions to that which I know of first hand, and that which I believe I can reliably defend. One thing a big mouth know-it-all learns is to try and not ask questions that they don't know the answers to. I am not an earth hating defender of unconscionable corporate destruction of the commons. I was plantin' trees and cleaning up stream beds and vacant lots when you were probably still absorbing PCB's through your mother's womb. I have also been the victim of our system's abject failures to protect, while being inadvertently harmed for what will doubtless be a shorter life thanks in large part to the manipulation of science, by scientists, and yes they were being very well paid. One of my best friends is a big shot scientists with the CDC, and I have another who spent his career studying weather for the Navy. I have a very large family presence in academia, specifically in mathematics and the sciences. I know first hand how the grant game works, and once on a bet filed for and obtained over $100,000 worth of funding for complete and utter bullshit, from five different sources, just to illustrate the point.

There are and have been scientists lying and manipulating raw data for centuries. The oldest part of it could be excused as part of the evolution of science and understanding its methods, but that which we have witnessed of late is simply self serving egoism and willful pride. Where there is money in large quantities to be had, scientists are no different than any of the others amongst us. They are just as prone to succumbing to temptation as anyone, and neglecting to realize that will put you at a distinct disadvantage in understanding every time. Just remember - it was scientists that helped the cigarette companies figure out how to manipulate the nicotine levels even while they were being investigated by Congress and buying off every political whore in town. It was scientists who told the residents of the Marshall Islands that radiation levels were fine. They also figured that a great way to get rid of industrial waste like fluorine was to put it into our water supply and tell us it was beneficial. They developed and defended PCB's and asbestos for decades after it was KNOWN and PROVED to be deadly. The list is endless, so please don't insult us by trying to claim that as a group they represent some larger capacity for integrity. It's just not true.

I am not "assuming" that climate change is false - I have always fully supported and recognized that fact. You are now attempting the not so slick environmentalist slippery quip of switching your thesis from what I assert is discredited Global Warming claim, to general climate change - which ridiculously enough has no bounds. Yes climate changes... so what?

The whole volcanoes spewing noxious gases and ash, etc. it's hard for even a force as disruptive as man to compete with. Yes I agree that we should do as little harm as possible - but no I don't believe we should all live like primitives to save the earth.

Yes, that's very true, but I was not challenging the basic tenets of science, I was attempting to discuss the very real implications of "passionate" human beings, and the importance of being able to keep one's belly full as it relates to fulfilling agendas. The inanimate data has no means of defending itself against misappropriation, manipulation or selective processing. That's where the "passionate" and hungry scientists come in to play.

I believe that I have adequately skewered the element of "Passion" amongst the climate crowd. Your point regarding money however is not so easily dismissed. In a world where many college grads are unemployed or seriously underemployed, any job in academia or with the Feral government represents employment at a rate of remuneration significantly above the norm. There are three major sources of employ for scientists: Government, Academia, and private industry. None are exclusive in their morality, and none are exclusive in their humanity, so stop trying to create some kind of imaginary distinction to fit your own self image. YOU may be above reproach in terms of your own personal conduct, but please stop deluding yourself as to the integrity of the field on the whole.

You kind'a lost me on this point. I'm going to infer that you were trying to say that we should all be wary of corporations acting in the name of profit. Well certainly. They are what they are, a vehicle for making money. That is their whole purpose in being, not self sacrifice and altruism. That said, they are we. Corporations are not individuals, but they are comprised of employees, directors, managers. investors and the like - all people. So when you assail the entity, try not to lose sight of what that entity represents. The Tragedy of the Commons is a well established maxim that requires no further debate, but the last part of your comment is where I start to be become alarmed and call foul.

Are you trying to suggest that IF the numbers were not supportive of your desire and efforts to manage something through central planners, that that would be a shame, or something that would justify the "tweaking" of data? I am also getting that your "pure science" facade is no more than a canard for more insipid central planner socialism. What the majority think and believe is more often than not influenced and decided by effective propaganda and defective personal analysis. Again, Mr. Gore and his movie have proven that. Of course the argument should also be made that without the significant impact of well publicized and broadly media supported misinformation and lies such as his, there would be absolutely nothing to debate, so I appreciate that it brings idea to light - but I take huge exception with their acceptance and support as fact when they are not.

I've never heard a "real" clinician say anything even remotely like that. What you just admitted is that they have a predetermined perspective. For a scientists to look at data and declare that it doesn't look good would suggest that they had something juxtaposed that which they consider good, and the data ain't it. Do you actually read what you are writing, or is this all just extemporaneous defensiveness?

As for the lobbyists and Washington, again - you know not what you speak. The lobbyists are the constant, while the Congressional hookers are the variable. The lobbyists don't arrive, it's their town now, and has been for quite a while. There are constituencies for every single pro and con on every single issue. The environmentalist lobby is every bit as crooked and merciless in their attempts to bribe and influence as their opponents. They are after all still all lawyers for the most part, so again, quit trying to create distinctions of moral superiority where none exist. They both push and pull for extreme measures, the exclusive adoption of either being catastrophic for us. Thankfully we get enough of it right that we mange to develop cures to the problems as we move along, progress is not completely thwarted and life goes on. Most reasonable folks are in the middle, and that is all that keeps us from being completely fucked - but the ying must be balanced by an equal yang or we go out of balance. I would suggest in looking at the last decade and our current state, that we are way off kilter here, and it ain't in favor of unfettered polluters.

Unless a scientist is not really a scientist, and is preoccupied with thrusting them self into the public view, they are never hit with claims or questions such as you mentioned. The money IS there, and if they aren't getting it, it's just because they aren't pushing the right agenda buttons with their respective research.

Look around at the majority of our land grant universities and what do you see? The largest amount of largesse shown these institutions of higher learning is from corporations who want really smart kids to help them, make money. The way they do that is fund research facilities and studies that serve their purposes. When you decide to chase dead cats, you need to make sure that somebody is interested in dead cats before you make it your life's work - supposing you are concerned with money and not the "pure science" of it all. When the Global Warmers found that there was a market for their bullshit, they pulled out all of the stops and scientific method went the way of the Dodo, and yes - the money did flow, and for a goodly while. Then there was that little hiccup with the lies and manipulated data, the unvetted peer reviews that were accepted and repeated in yet further published peer reviews, to the point of the ridiculous where a few bullshit papers promulgated and supported an industry.

There is money in it - lots of money. It is a good con and again, Mr. Gore is a great poster child for it all. There is of course profit, because it has in fact developed its own viral kind of parasitic industry that we all must now unfortunately pay to support. And lastly, the presence of confounding variables is science. The intentional ignoring of those variables by publishing fiction as fact, when no attempt was made to block those variables is simply fraud, and it is not an accident, and it is not uncommon.

Don't know which government you are referring to 'cuz last I checked, the Global Warming morons were still in charge. They have the White House and control the Senate, as well as having a pretty large constituency in the House. And no, I don't believe ANYTHING that they suggest.


Sure it helps industry not to over regulate, and sure they can not be trusted not to destroy the commons, but we gotta be able to eat before we can worry ourselves to death over cow farts and volcanoes. Again I would point out your descent from the mighty self righteousness of anti globe warmer to blathering about it's warm, it's cold, it's changing weather OMG! Which is it BTW. We're getting too cold or too warm, and you base this on what precisely? Conventional wisdom, or "leading scientific peer review journals". I'm all eyes and ears on that.


If it's only politicians getting rich off of this, then where would you hide the billions that the Cap and Traders will receive, or the carbon credit brokers? How about the sniveling drivel that got paid to make the movie, and lots more where that came from? How about the P.R. and marketing firms that are asshole deep committed to the agenda... they don't work for free? Then of course there's the whole extortionist scheme behind the non-profits that pay pretty tasty salaries and benefits for supporters of their cause. You need a little reality visit to the planet we be green. There's a whole fucking industry growed up around this bullshit, replete with lobbyists, lawyers, celebrity endorsements and a whole propaganda machine. Just 'cuz you get a check out of it doesn't make it righteous.

Any pseudo scientist that wants to make a lot of money need only hold up his hand and somebody will grab him to add fuel to the fire, that's true - for both sides. The money has for decades flowed disproportionately toward supporting the Warmers, til they got caught with their dicks in their hands, and now you'll just have to wait for the natural pendulum swing to return. Eventually it loses momentum and centers someplace back in the middle, closer to reality no doubt, but in the meantime - pick a position and stand there when ya wanna fight. This moving target thing (it's warm - it's cold - it's changing) is really distracting.

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

K10

You paint with a very large brush.

In this context global warming is analogous to climate change. It's not a "trick." The terminology is interchangeable.

I really don't get your argument and I don't think much of what you've said is really representative of the scientific community as a whole.

Pretty much anyplace you've written scientists I could simply swap any other group into its place and be more or less right.

I did not suggest that "tweaking" data was ever acceptable and I don't know how you got to that conclusion.

I am not for or against global warming/climate change just the same as I am not for or against the sky being blue. It just is. What people choose to do with that information is beyond the control of anyone really.

Outside the range of normalcy = potentially bad. (blah, blah, blah Milankovitch cycles etc, I really don't want to get into this.) My only predetermined conclusion here is that I rather like this earth and I'd rather not destroy it just yet if that can be prevented. I don't have any subversive goal and I don't believe that a lot of the people you have included in your generalizations do either and your point of view insults a lot of good people.

I must admit I do not currently have the attention span to spar with you on a lot of this stuff and I'm far to apathetic to continue. I've exhausted my desire to defend myself on the internets and now I'm gonna get high on my couch. Al Gore is a douche, anything can be twisted to serve your own ends. There.....we agree on that.

__________________
Just because you tie dye your wool, doesn't mean
you're not a sheep.
R.I.P. Alice D.

Galt

Sorry, still confused about your position. Do you believe in Global Warming, or something else?

I used a broad brush 'cuz the "scientific community as a whole" encompasses many disciplines and many different examples of poor method/bad science. I was not trying to suggest that you had any personally nefarious agenda, only that people are people, and holding scientists out as something above reproach is as asinine as suggesting that priests can be trusted around little kids.

My questioning your absolutism about whatever it is that you believe is based on a desire to access the same wealth of knowledge that has so impressed you, and yet you persist in being stingy. What have you seen that has been so utterly convincing? I don't understand your evasions.

I'm pretty fond of the mother ship as well, and so I'd like to see us learn to co-exist without having shit decided by a small handful who think they know best. Most do nothing but lie to gain power and influence.

Here's to the douche. Think I'll join ya on the couch...

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

Kompressor

Anyone who believe in DNA and not medical science needs a CAT scan.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is more disproven than evolution.

Of course though, most of Johnny Galt's fanatics will not accept he is a work of fiction.

__________________
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

Galt

Huh? As usual, your reflexive stabs leave me wondering "does what he type actually sound this way in his head?"

The relevance of your comment to the subject at hand is wha...?

The moniker, it's just a name bro', calm down.

Start a thread and we'll discuss the differences that you see in fact vs. fiction of differing philosophies, and then maybe you can share your own that, I'm guessing, has been vetted and proved by the scientific method, and is supported by a wealth of empirical data. They're all just ideas, intended to impart wisdom by encouraging rational thought, not dogma or a set of rules designed to manipulate and control people. That would be politics and religion. Then again, most of what I read from you is more sophist than philosophy, so what exactly IS your agenda, self aggrandizement, general contrariety, hypogonadism ...? I'm not sure that I really care, but if you've something interesting to discuss I'm willing to engage. This aversion to ideas and thinking that makes you so uncomfortable might be worthy of more professional analysis, but we can give it a try if you like.

My sidebar with K10 has ended where it began. I still look forward to his sharing of information, which I'm guessing you've no ability or desire to impart so... do you have something to actually add, or are you simply up to your usual?

__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
_________________

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

kitch

tl;dr

__________________

Jewish Pork

Please explain this logic.