Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
    2 points
  2. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  5. It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
    2 points
  6. So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
    2 points
  7. 2 points
  8. Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
    2 points
  9. Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
    2 points
  10. No. I didn't ask that. Ah. So, you're interested in discussing Jon, not Q. Why not do so? That might be interesting. Hahaha. Wow, that was so smooth, Billy! Seamless! I didn't even see what happened. No one did. Believing in bullshit (or not applying a coherent realist/small-O epistemology) is not an Objectivist virtue. In my opinion, Q is a fraud and a distraction with all the trappings of a cult movement. It boggles my mind that Objectivish people accept either the soft or hard version of the Q lore, or find the foundational premises of Q captivating in themselves. Yeah, about that. Since my first posting of this topic, rational takes on the phenomena have skidded off the runway, and the rotten epistemology has proliferated. Yesterday, a most cynical day, the President put his finger on the problem, the skid of reason. Since the tut-tut pat on the head above, realism and objective epistemology is on its way to the ditch.
    1 point
  11. All Polls are Wrong. I don't see why any present poll or polling average should give comfort to the Democratic campaign, because it seems like the real campaign hasn't started. About the only areas that might be of concern to the GOP campaign are seemingly 'iffy' contests for the Senate. I will put down a marker here of so-called swing state polls, and return once all the votes are counted in these (maybe) key races. Arizona -- today Real Clear Politics aggregate of surveys suggests that Democrat Mark Kelly is ~11% in front of the incumbent GOP senator McSally. Colorado -- RCP's page suggests (on very very scant data) that the incumbent Corey Gardner is ~10% behind challenger John Hickenlooper. Iowa -- GOP senator Jody Ernst won over her 2014 Democratic opponent by 8.5%. RCP has no information on the present race, but a mid-June Iowa Register survey suggested a three-point advantage to the Democratic candidate Theresa Greenfield. Maine -- up for re-election is Susan Collins, who won her 2014 contest by 14 points. RCP currently shows a slight lead for her 2020 opponent Sarah Gideon. Montana -- RCP has no data to present on the race here between Steve Daines and Steve Bullock. But I include this one to test the mettle of the Cook Political Report, who has put the race in the 'toss-up' column. North Carolina -- the incumbent is Thom Tillis of the GOP. He faces Cal Cunningham. RCP rates this contest a 'toss-up' on scant data. So, if Arizona, Maine and Colorado are lost by the GOP on November 3, then the Senate will be even-steven, 50 to 50.
    1 point
  12. I know that there are more than one guy with 'you disgusting scumbag' in his mouth reading here. I think 'yds,' and I and invisible readers are all dealing with some relatively straightforward questions, questions that should be amenable to reason of the Randian stripe. Which explanation of of the Twitter Card image behaviour is the more reasonable, makes least assumptions, is the fruit of investigation and inquiry? Which stands up to close scrutiny? Which accounts for all the evidence (including such items as the Q cut and paste from a dev blog)? There would be plenty more questions in play, maybe, if we had a bigger quorum of active members. "Did Obama.org (or Obama race riot sorrows machine) organize a ritual murder of George Floyd?" "Some folk may claim that Q 'warned off' Obama in drops 4436 & 4437*. Does the evidence brought forth from rational inquiry support that claim?" "How would you explain in your own words the three Q drops that caused much discussion and explanatory hypothesizing?" My question to myself is 'what explains why and how some people's beliefs survive a reasonable debunking?' "Let a hundred flowers bloom," said Deng, before he realized how that would probably work out for one-party rule in China and shut it all down. 'Let your freedom of conscience ring. Don't be afraid of devils conjured up to incite prejudice and rage. If evil there is, beware of making The Fundamental Attribution Error.' I paraphrase. As might be apparent, I am not of the Gibbet Enthusiast Party.
    1 point
  13. I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.
    1 point
  14. No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
    1 point
  15. Trump says 'nothing's a hoax' about climate change A few days later https://www.socotoday.com/blog/2020/01/21/davos-2020-trump-says-us-will-join-1-trillion-tree-planting-scheme-day-one-live-business/ He even signs legislation that gives subsidies to companies to mitigate climate change by sequestering or reducing carbon dioxide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/02/05/new-carbon-capture-technologies-just-waiting-for-irs-green-light/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/08/how-trump-signed-something-that-could-actually-mitigate-climate-change/#5049dcfe428c
    1 point
  16. So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2? Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming? This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.
    1 point
  17. The article is a bunch of opinions with a whopper that if humans just stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere everything will be hunky dory. Billions dying of starvation while the ruling elites "protect" the planet is not mentioned. The only significant alternative to fossil fuels for life sustaining energy production is nuclear. --Brant
    1 point
  18. I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. I think sometimes that 'What Could Persuade You to Change Your Mind?" is the right way to go, but that question doesn't reveal what a particular person believes. I don't -- after all this time -- know which beliefs are held by who, not in detail (except for Bob/Ba'al). It might be best answered by the Yale Climate Communications survey questions as revised. (or by a simple set of questions which answers reflect relative adhesion to so-called 'Consensus Statements**). The results of answering the Yale 'SASSY' survey questions assign a person's position among the "Six Americas" ... My assignment: Brief video that outlines the distinctions between the six 'buckets' ... _____________________ ** Eg, Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming from NASA
    1 point
  19. My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
    1 point
  20. 1 point
  21. I wonder if this person/collective is on the job today. Do any of their co-workers observe this kind of thing being typed out ... ? Think for yourself. Be the white zebra. The black zebras are evul.
    1 point
  22. The President has things to say about Roger Stone and justice. Something something "planted into Team Trump" in 1999 by mumble mumble ... Stone is a plant of the Kabbal woop woop.
    1 point
  23. The Q as Folk numpties are at work:
    1 point
  24. Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
    1 point
  25. Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
    1 point
  26. Here's a story that invites thought about 'Fake News' ... Court revives suit alleging Fox News inflicted 'emotional torture' on Seth Rich family
    1 point
  27. Did I misspell friction? No, but. 1. Dr. Franklin 2. The Weather Wizard 3. Nicholas Demente 4. GALAXY 5. Destro 6. Colonel Cobb 7. Sir August De Wynter 8. Simon Bar Sinister 9. Crimson Cowl 10. The Weatherman
    1 point
  28. Any "scientific consensus" is bogus, politicalized science. Its first cousin is "climate change." A family of lying liars. --Brant the real message is "Shut up, fool!"
    1 point
  29. Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting? J
    1 point
  30. Oh my god, there's no time to waste? There's no planet B? Oh, no! Well, then, we had better forget all about the questions that I've asked which remain unanswered, and instead focus on action. We have to act now. It's an emerergency. Extreme measures need to be taken. And Billy is going volunteer to be the first. Thank you for your sacrifice, Billy, and for leading by example. J
    1 point
  31. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J
    1 point
  32. Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
    1 point
  33. They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
    1 point
  34. Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!
    1 point
  35. yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to the bank, their power centers and their occupations of unearned privilege. False conspiracies do one thing in reality, though. They make it hard has hell for the elitists to make people agree with them. They need the common people to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP GODDAMMIT. How else can they perpetrate their garbage and crony scams in peace? So now they are writing books asking nicely and with kindness for people to sit down and shut up goddammit. Fuck them. We don't need fewer false conspiracy theories. We need more. We need robust debate, always, not goddam gatekeepers who think they are better than others to the extent they get to tell all people what they can look at and consider. Most people are good. They are not cattle. They'll figure things out over time. They always have. And they sure as hell don't need idiots from the ruling class to tell them what to think. Here's a far better book by Tucker Carlson that looks at precisely the kind of person who wants such unearned power. It's No. 1 on Amazon right now. I've read it and it's one of the best books on current politics I have ever read. Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution And there's this. Tucker doesn't mean "selfish" in a Randian sense. He means it in a childish and thuggish sense. Hurting people on purpose and taking their things. My favorite observation by Tucker is the sheer incompetence of the current ruling class. He said there has never been a more incompetent ruling class in human history. This batch is just plain stupid. I agree. The've turned science into a religion, are now working on getting rid of due process and believing this is good, and so on. And not one of them can do a goddam thing of value. One video I saw elsewhere asked an interesting question. If you were stranded on a desert island, who would you want to be stranded with? People who wag their finger at you over gender identity crises, who call you racist every time you disagree with them, and so on? Or plumbers, carpenters, fishermen, and so on? Give me a conspiracy theorist any day of the week over an asshole elitist who wants to rule me because he thinks he's a superior life form. He's not a superior life form. He's a goddam fool who's time of cultural relevance is--thankfully--coming to an end... Michael
    1 point
  36. I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees? Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?
    1 point
  37. It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Billy's meaning. In referring to "Jonathan's homework," Billy, did you mean not the homework that you think that I have neglected to turn in, but the homework that I've assigned to you? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding above. However, my response still remains the same in essence: It is not homework that I'm giving to you, but rather the reality of the requirements of science, and the dictates of the onus of proof. It's not some irrelevant or tangentially silly burden that old Jonathan has come up with to waste your time, but the core of the issue at hand.
    1 point
  38. So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on? Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder. Let's review: Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..." That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional. So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?" Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question. J
    1 point
  39. I looked for a minute and a half at the video and I can only take so much smarmy gotcha tone. So I stopped. Ayn Rand once said to not examine a folly. Only look at what it accomplishes. The folly I keep seeing about chemtrails goes something like this in the subtext: Sure, you can throw shit out of an airplane on top of people's heads for nefarious reasons, but our elites would never do that. Whoever even imagines our elites would do something like that is wacko. All the rest is arguing over semantics and playing gotcha to show just how wacko a questioner is. And that is generally the only result anyone gains from examining a folly perpetrated by the establishment. You have to swallow the proposition of the pristine moral integrity of corrupt elites along with nitpicking. It's bullshit. yawn... Michael
    1 point
  40. Blah blah blah... Jail is not jail if you don't use the word sentence... Right... What a crock. I'm actually glad this happened. By jailing Manafort before the trial, The Swamp has openly declared war--using guns--on President Trump. Now he can act against them as the one attacked. Now we will see who has the larger reach and influence with America's armed forces and law enforcement. As the saying goes in Brazil, the bird who swallows stones better know the size of its own asshole... Michael
    1 point