Public Dissentiment
> On Sat, Jan 28 2017 07:08:39 -0700 > "Waldo Weatherbee" wrote: > > Torproject (et al) pays people to disrupt lists Tor is for fags like you. > > no reason to use tor-based email for a public list The great freedom fighter Rayzer. > > AND I'm really disappointed in protonmail's response to my snitching Wrong provider. See the email address, dear.
Re: Public Dissentiment
> On Jan 28, 2017, at 11:31 PM, juan wrote: > > > > > me: >>> That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You >>> are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. >>> >>> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. >>> >>> I never said that. >>> > > John: >> Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young >> girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly >> disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not >> getting into it again, please just leave it alone. >> >>> So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that >>> comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't >>> make me a bible thumper. >>> >> >> >> How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT >> believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with >> Trump and his cronies. > > >OK. Allegedly, the trump mafia, which is a subset of >the us gov't mafia, doesn't believe in global warming. I say >'allegedly' because I would be hardly surprised if they >flip-floped. But fine, for the time being they are on the >payroll of the oil mafia (oops a 'conspiracy theory') > >However, other factions of the us gov't do believe in 'climate >change'. So my claim "you get your propaganda from the >gov't" is still valid (more accurately, the source is a faction >within the gov't) - If I'm in line with the repuglicans, then >you are in line with the democrats. >But OK, I see how you can turn my argument around and say that >I'm a shill for shell and exxon (and aramco I guess). Even if >you do that, my general point still stands. The 'climate >change' faction IS a faction. They are not honest and >'objective' 'scientists'. They are playing a political game. >And 'science' has always been manipulated by political >interests. Something you seem to completely ignore. > > I disagree, for the most part, on this particular issue. The factions seem to me to be a tiny percentage of scientists willing to stand with the "oil mafia", vs the vast majority who seem to me to be standing with the science. Even if the democrats at least profess belief in this existential issue, what did they ever really do about it? Anything of consequence? I don't think the factions break down like you imagine, and I don't give the democrats much credit simply for refusing to deny the issue. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >> >> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been >> made, > > Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the > 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are > not mistakes. There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. >>> >>> Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like >>> you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of >>> thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor >>> 'mistaken' altruists or something. >>> >>> >> >> I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted >> as science by anyone, anywhere? > > >So you actucally don't have a clue about what 'scientists' >used to say? Here's ONE fucking datapoint for you. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_LGBT_rights > >"The World Health Organisation declassifies homosexuality as a >mental illness in the latest edition of its list of diseases >and health problems, the ICD-10." > >Now, was that 1992 BEFORE FUCKING CHRIST or after? I'm not >goind to do more of your homework. You gaagle the rest. > Ok, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Obviously this is a disgusting blemish on the history of "scientific inquiry" ;) ... I don't put much stock in psychology personally, despite what you may think. > >> >> Early experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china, >>> >>> AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with >>> 'science', fake or legitimate? >>> >>> >> >> >> Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you >> love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is >> there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and >> rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved. > > >Keep up with your bullshit. You are doing exactly what I say >you are doing. You are making excuses for people who are >corrupt to the bone. The 'mistakes' (your word) or now 'fuck >ups' are not 'mistakes'. > Yes, many of them were criminal acts, no doubt, with financial pressure pushing legit science aside and causing atrocities. I won't bother with another list, you can gaagle it yourself ;) In any case, they were still mistakes. >'Science' when done by people is not guaranteed at all to >really be science. It obviously can be p
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 1/29/2017 3:29 PM, James A. Donald wrote: I am pretty sure that under the new management, we will no longer hear that each year was warmer than the last, (by an amount much smaller than the various sources of error that occur in attempting to measure global temperatures, which sources of error are "corrected" by ad hoc guessed corrections) and instead this year, and subsequent years during the Trump presidency, will be significantly cooler than 2016. We will also see during the Trump presidency a recovery in total area of the oceans covered by ice. I will bet you a six pack of beer that measured and observed Global Warming stops during the Trump presidency, both global temperatures and global sea ice. To be precise, I predict that the lowest area of global sea ice during the Trump presidency will always be higher, more sea covered by sea ice, than the lowest area of global sea ice during the Obama presidency. Will this shake your faith in: 1. Government science? 2. Global Warming?
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote: I'd like to point out here that the National Park Service was the way the public initially was informed of global climate change when an un-vetted--by-deniers memo to park managers leaked stating (Paraphrase): 'As the climate continues to get warmer over the years we should prepare for more summertime activities' a decade or more ago. I am pretty sure that under the new management, we will no longer hear that each year was warmer than the last, (by an amount much smaller than the various sources of error that occur in attempting to measure global temperatures, which sources of error are "corrected" by ad hoc guessed corrections) and instead this year, and subsequent years during the Trump presidency, will be significantly cooler than 2016. We will also see during the Trump presidency a recovery in total area of the oceans covered by ice. I will bet you a six pack of beer that measured and observed Global Warming stops during the Trump presidency, both global temperatures and global sea ice. Will this shake your faith in: 1. Government science? 2. Global Warming?
Re: Public Dissentiment
me: > >That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You > >are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. > > > > > >> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. > > > >I never said that. > > John: > Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young > girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly > disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not > getting into it again, please just leave it alone. > > >So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that > >comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't > >make me a bible thumper. > > > > > How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT > believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with > Trump and his cronies. OK. Allegedly, the trump mafia, which is a subset of the us gov't mafia, doesn't believe in global warming. I say 'allegedly' because I would be hardly surprised if they flip-floped. But fine, for the time being they are on the payroll of the oil mafia (oops a 'conspiracy theory') However, other factions of the us gov't do believe in 'climate change'. So my claim "you get your propaganda from the gov't" is still valid (more accurately, the source is a faction within the gov't) - If I'm in line with the repuglicans, then you are in line with the democrats. But OK, I see how you can turn my argument around and say that I'm a shill for shell and exxon (and aramco I guess). Even if you do that, my general point still stands. The 'climate change' faction IS a faction. They are not honest and 'objective' 'scientists'. They are playing a political game. And 'science' has always been manipulated by political interests. Something you seem to completely ignore. > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been > made, > >>> > >>>Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the > >>> 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are > >>> not mistakes. > >> > >> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. > > > >Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like > >you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of > >thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor > >'mistaken' altruists or something. > > > > > > I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted > as science by anyone, anywhere? So you actucally don't have a clue about what 'scientists' used to say? Here's ONE fucking datapoint for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_LGBT_rights "The World Health Organisation declassifies homosexuality as a mental illness in the latest edition of its list of diseases and health problems, the ICD-10." Now, was that 1992 BEFORE FUCKING CHRIST or after? I'm not goind to do more of your homework. You gaagle the rest. > > > >> Early > >> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china, > > > >AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with > >'science', fake or legitimate? > > > > > > > Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you > love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is > there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and > rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved. Keep up with your bullshit. You are doing exactly what I say you are doing. You are making excuses for people who are corrupt to the bone. The 'mistakes' (your word) or now 'fuck ups' are not 'mistakes'. 'Science' when done by people is not guaranteed at all to really be science. It obviously can be political propaganda. > > > > > > > >> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA > >> came around, etc, etc. > > > >Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American > >Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true > >statist colors. > > > > Tsk tsk all you want dickhead, it's a fact. All sorts of toxic shit > was passed off prior to the fda (and after, for that matter). So you just contradicted yourself in two senteces? Can't you make up your mind? =) Does the american anarchist FDA 'work' or not? > My > anarchist utopia will have some sort of opt-in dope inspection line, > but I'm happy for you to die of arsenic poisoning in yours. 'Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, das ein Ding kein Gift ist." > > >By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your > >Progressive Scientifc Anarc
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/28/2017 03:55 AM, John Newman wrote: >> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:08 PM, batty wrote: > > What another amazing addition to the list :) > > I can't figure the attraction for scum like you to "participate" on cpunks. > Actually I can't figure the attraction for scum like yourself to get up in > the morning. > > Afaict this IS the reason. I wonder how much Torproject (et al) pays people to disrupt lists that critique their product? I have all sigaint mail (ie torprojects bffs) shitcanned at the server. There is no over-weeening reason to use tor-based email for a public list. AND I'm really disappointed in protonmail's response to my notifying them their servers are being used for spam traffic. "aff aff". Rr
Re: Public Dissentiment
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:08 PM, booty wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 27 2017 14:23:36 -1400 > > "John Newman" wrote: > > > > asperger's syndrome > > Is not real anymore, I don't think. > > > She couldn't talk > > Get that bitch some weed. > > > Was "curing" gays ever accepted as science by anyone, anywhere? > > Yeah, here. Depriving children of saturated fats and cholesterol fucks up > their hormone production; > less testosterone for boys, less estrogen for girls. > > Reverse it. > > There is your "cure". > What another amazing addition to the list :) I can't figure the attraction for scum like you to "participate" on cpunks. Actually I can't figure the attraction for scum like yourself to get up in the morning. > > >
Re: Public Dissentiment
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:23:36 -0500 > John Newman wrote: > >> >> >> /snip > >I'll reply to your message later, but there's something I feel >curious about right now. > >Do you think that the people who run the US central bank (or >any other central bank), and all the 'economists' from 'very >important' universities who take central banks and money >printing for granted, are 'scientists'? Are so called >'keynesian' 'economists' 'scientists'? > > > No. It's a "field" that can be gamed and manipulated using analytical techniques, but fundamentally it would fall more in line as a form of sociology or some other study of people. Economic policy is dictated by the barrel of the gun, rules and charters and guidelines written out by corporate interests and enforced by the various governments in a very transparent attempt at keeping the rich man (and nation) rich and the poor man (and nation) poor. I have no deep understanding or insights on this subject (nor much interest) but these are the thoughts off the top of my head. > > > > >
Public Dissentiment
> > On 01/27/2017 05:22 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > government funded science > Like when the sugar industry paid Harvard to blame fat in fake studies. This why SeeSee is dying. Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255 Articles: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-harvard-conspiracy-1.3759582 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3785753/How-sugar-industry-paid-prestigious-Harvard-researchers-say-fat-NOT-sugar-caused-heart-disease.html https://www.rt.com/usa/359127-sugar-industry-faked-research/ http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat http://elitedaily.com/wellness/sugar-industry-harvard-scientists-lie/1609506/ https://thelogicalindian.com/story-feed/awareness/how-the-sugar-industry-paid-harvard-scientists-shifted-blame-of-heart-diseases-to-fat/
Public Dissentiment
> On Fri, Jan 27 2017 14:23:36 -1400 > "John Newman" wrote: > > Was "curing" gays ever accepted as science by anyone, anywhere? And that's where trannies come from. Step 1. Convince children that loving the same gender is wrong. Step 2. Convince children said love means they are the wrong gender. Step 3. Gayness "cured". See.
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:46:05PM -0300, Juan wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500 > John Newman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not > > > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that > > > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and > > > > religious fervor. > > > > > > Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored > > > joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political > > > phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot > > > the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are > > > considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'. > > > > > > Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument, > > > but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. > > > They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose. > > > > > > > Whatever, you get my point. > > > No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is > that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s). When I don't have time to read a whole thread, and want a quick summary, just read one of Juan's posts. :D
Public Dissentiment
> On Fri, Jan 27 2017 14:23:36 -1400 > "John Newman" wrote: > > asperger's syndrome Is not real anymore, I don't think. > She couldn't talk Get that bitch some weed. > Was "curing" gays ever accepted as science by anyone, anywhere? Yeah, here. Depriving children of saturated fats and cholesterol fucks up their hormone production; less testosterone for boys, less estrogen for girls. Reverse it. There is your "cure".
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:23:36 -0500 John Newman wrote: > > > /snip I'll reply to your message later, but there's something I feel curious about right now. Do you think that the people who run the US central bank (or any other central bank), and all the 'economists' from 'very important' universities who take central banks and money printing for granted, are 'scientists'? Are so called 'keynesian' 'economists' 'scientists'?
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/27/2017 05:22 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote: >> Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more >> reliable compass. > > You mean government funded science: You mean with any currently existent government on Earth "unhindered by profit motivations" could be the case? Which one? Rr
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote: Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more reliable compass. You mean government funded science: What do you know, government funded science, like government funded Aztec theology, discovers that immense human sacrifices are necessary in order to ensure the sun rise, and the government gets to decide which humans to sacrifice. Real science shows the data and the workings, the evidence and the calculations. Global warming science, like Aztec theology, demands our faith. And when you launch freedom of information requests demanding the evidence that shows we are doomed if the necessary human sacrifices are not made, you get stonewalled. When Trump's team took charge they demanded the evidence and the calculations. Still not getting them.
Re: Public Dissentiment
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:46 PM, juan wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500 > John Newman wrote: > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and religious fervor. >>> >>>Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored >>> joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political >>>phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot >>> the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are >>>considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'. >>> >>>Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument, >>>but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. >>> They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose. >>> >> >> Whatever, you get my point. > > >No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is >that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s). > > > > > >> >>> >>> It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy, >>> >>> >>>Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, >>>what you said describes you better than it describes me. >>> >>>The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really >>>talking about a rational search for truth, which is also >>> known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the >>>establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. >> >> That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of >> all that is correct. > > >Neither are you nor your state-funded 'scientific' mafia. And >your reply is just hand waving. > > > >> >>> >>> again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. >>> >>> >>>I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not >>> 'real'. >>> >> >> You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a >> hoax, > >That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You >are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. > > >> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. > >I never said that. > Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not getting into it again, please just leave it alone. >So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that >comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't >make me a bible thumper. > How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with Trump and his cronies. >Did I ever mention that your blind faith in state science means >you are a lot closer to bible thumpers than I am? > Did i ever mention that i don't give a fuck about your idiotic and untrue non-sequitirs? > > > > >> >>> >>> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, >>> >>>Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the >>> 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are >>> not mistakes. >> >> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. > >Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like >you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of >thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor >'mistaken' altruists or something. > > I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted as science by anyone, anywhere? >> Early >> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china, > >AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with >'science', fake or legitimate? > > Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved. > > >> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came >> around, etc, etc. > >Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American >Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true >statist colors. > Tsk tsk all you want dickhead, it's a fact. All sorts of toxic shit was passed off prior to the fda (and after, for that matter). My anarchist utopia will have some sort of opt-in dope inspection line, but I'm happy for you to die of arsenic poisoning in yours. >By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your >Progressive Scientif
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500 John Newman wrote: > > > > > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not > > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that > > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and > > > religious fervor. > > > > Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored > > joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political > > phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot > > the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are > > considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'. > > > > Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument, > > but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. > > They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose. > > > > Whatever, you get my point. No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s). > > > > > > > > > > > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the > > > validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using > > > your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular > > > conspiracy, > > > > > > Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, > > what you said describes you better than it describes me. > > > > The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really > > talking about a rational search for truth, which is also > > known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the > > establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. > > That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of > all that is correct. Neither are you nor your state-funded 'scientific' mafia. And your reply is just hand waving. > > > > > > > > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. > > > Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. > > > > > > I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not > > 'real'. > > > > You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a > hoax, That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. > that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. I never said that. So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't make me a bible thumper. Did I ever mention that your blind faith in state science means you are a lot closer to bible thumpers than I am? > > > > > > > > > > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, > > > > Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the > > 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are > > not mistakes. > > There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor 'mistaken' altruists or something. > Early > experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china, AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with 'science', fake or legitimate? > exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came > around, etc, etc. Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true statist colors. By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your Progressive Scientifc Anarchist FDA. > > > > > And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that > > sort of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry > > is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else > > about 'science'. > > > > Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would > think that is obvious. > What is obvious to me is that you are either unable to understand what I'm saying, or ignoring it on purpose. I think it's more the later than the former. > > > > > > > but > > > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science > > > works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:43:26PM -0300, juan wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:07:09 -0500 > John Newman wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800 > > > Razer wrote: > > > > > >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. > > >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of > > >> global events. > > > > > >American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly > > >taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military > > >party line. > > > > > >The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of > > >people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with > > >electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of > > >course. > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and > > religious fervor. > > Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored joo-kristian > tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political > phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot the > 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are > considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'. > > Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument, > but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. They > are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose. > Whatever, you get my point. > > > > > > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity > > of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own > > brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy, > > > Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, > what you said describes you better than it describes me. > > The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really > talking about a rational search for truth, which is also known > as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the > establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of all that is correct. > > > > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint: > > science and the scientific method are fucking real. > > > I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not 'real'. > You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a hoax, that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. > > > > > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, > > Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the 'medical' > 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are not mistakes. There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. Early experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china, exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came around, etc, etc. > > And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that sort > of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry > is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else > about 'science'. > Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would think that is obvious. > > > > but > > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. > > > > > > > > >
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:07:09 -0500 John Newman wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800 > > Razer wrote: > > > >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. > >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of > >> global events. > > > >American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly > >taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military > >party line. > > > >The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of > >people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with > >electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of > >course. > > > > > > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and > religious fervor. Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'. Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument, but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose. > > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity > of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own > brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy, Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, what you said describes you better than it describes me. The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really talking about a rational search for truth, which is also known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint: > science and the scientific method are fucking real. I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not 'real'. > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are not mistakes. And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that sort of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else about 'science'. > but > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. > > > >
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/27/2017 09:06 AM, Steve Kinney wrote: > "Faith in science" is at best a grossly unreliable compass for those > who do not understand the methods and history of science, and the > impact of un- and anti-scientific influences on the practice of > science in the real world. Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more reliable compass. I'd like to point out here that the National Park Service was the way the public initially was informed of global climate change when an un-vetted--by-deniers memo to park managers leaked stating (Paraphrase): 'As the climate continues to get warmer over the years we should prepare for more summertime activities' a decade or more ago. Rr
Re: Public Dissentiment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2017 10:17 AM, Razer wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 10:13 PM, James A. Donald wrote: >> >> The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and >> silencing opposition, rather the discovering and publishing >> evidence. >> >> > > You're entitled to your wrong interpolation. I do see a major problem with public perception of science, driven by social trends in academia and the self-promotion interests of media personalities presented to the public as the "voice of Science." I call it the Scientician faith: Just change out a Bishop's crook and mitre for a PhD and lab coat and viola, a High Priest. In academia, a naive but paradoxically condescending brand of atheism is the de facto State Religion. At best, certain religions where "liberal" political views hold sway may be tolerated as beneficial exercises in applied social psychology (i.e. Unitarian, Quaker). The rest are lumped together as infantile, socially destructive delusions, and disposed of with a handy set of strawman attacks against their participants: Sneering atheists always know /much/ more about the motives and behavior of "religious" people than those people know themselves, and never hesitate to fill them in. In many instances it is painfully obvious that atheism is a neurotic expression of a repressed fear that God - the nasty one from fundamentalist fairy tales - might exist. The modern and correct replacement for naive religious belief is Scientism, a faith whose adherents believe that science provides final answers to all meaningful questions about life, the Universe "and everything." These believers would not know a falsifiable hypothesis if it bit them in the ass, and can not distinguish a consensus model from Holy Writ. In their minds and lives, science is the final Voice of Authority, completely and exactly filling the role the Church held in the Dark and Middle Ages as final arbiter of Truth. As a general rule, only working scientists know that this is ridiculous - and I do not include the "social sciences" in this grouping. The Scientician faith has spread beyond academia, establishing itself as a popular cult through media personalities presented as High Priests of Scientism. In the process, personalities who serve as the public Voices of Science have become useful tools for propagandists tasked to promote "scientific" industrial products and public policy. Astrophysicists are especially well suited to this role, as their job is to explain "everything." Carl Sagan, a brilliant entertainer but 3rd rate scientist whose only notable contribution to the literature (signing off on a geophysical model of nuclear winter) lasted for just a few months before being discarded by community consensus, set the pattern. Neil Tyson now fills his shoes, reaching an audience of tens of millions with The Truth about various controversial issues in geophysics, the life sciences and public health policy on behalf of corporate sponsors. In the public mind, an astrophysicist is an expert on everything that exists. This brings us to a real problem of much more than "academic" concern: The role of corporate sponsorship as a regulating factor in research, publication and the evolution of consensus models in the sciences. The propaganda activities of petrochemicals lobbies, for instance, offer literal bounties for anyone with a PhD in any field related to geophysics who will go on record with the opinion that global warming is not real, and/or that human activity has nothing to do with it. These same information warriors fund a cottage industry that creates spurious "proofs" that the Earth is actually cooling, for use in media campaigns. This has so far been a losing battle, in that an overwhelming consensus supports global warming - but creating "doubt and dissent" is sufficient to defend de facto genocidal public policy. On the immunology, toxicology and epidemiology fronts, however, we have a very different outcome: Any findings harmful to the commercial interests of the multi-billion dollar PharmaChem research and development industry are in the "publish and perish" category for workers in these fields. As an example, any layman who examines public health statistics looking for the miracle working impact of "life saving vaccines" over the last century will notice that there was no such impact; but people who are paid to do so must pretend otherwise. A two year study falsifying the results of the most frequently cited papers indicating that flu vaccines has a significant impact on mortality was greeted by the Journal of the American Medical Association with, “To accept these results would be to say that the Earth is flat!” True story... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-ma tter/307723/ When genetic engineering first became possible in the early 1970s, geneticists and microbiologists did not debate the safety of the technol
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 10:13 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > > The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and > silencing opposition, rather the discovering and publishing evidence. > > You're entitled to your wrong interpolation.
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 08:30 PM, James A. Donald wrote: Science has been politicized. On 1/27/2017 2:42 PM, Razer wrote: So scientists are fighting back. 314 Action. The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and silencing opposition, rather the discovering and publishing evidence.
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 08:30 PM, James A. Donald wrote: > Science has been politicized. So scientists are fighting back. 314 Action. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0125/In-Trump-s-America-we-may-see-more-scientists-running-for-office http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14397644/scientists-protest-trump http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/25/14382514/scientists-march-on-washington-donald-trump-science-gag-order-epa Ps... From the alt National Parks service twitter account. "Just checkingYupwe've got more scientists and fact checkers running a Twitter account than Donald Trump has in his cabinet." https://twitter.com/AltNatParkSer/status/824589378370539521
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 1/27/2017 1:07 PM, John Newman wrote: > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, > but they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science > works. It does not work like that any longer. Science has been politicized. People’s opinion on things they don’t really have first-hand experience on is just social posturing, i.e. signaling. Messing with signaling brings heavy social consequences so of course people get angry. You can’t convince people of what would harm them socially if it were true, or what is not readily observable. That is why science was so hard to invent, and is so hard to maintain these days. The social forces that prevented science before the seventeenth century, are once again preventing it today. Science died shortly after World War II. Science ruled intellectually starting in 1660 when the King, the fount of all honors mortal and divine, gave his imprimatur to the Royal Society. The Royal Society knew what the Scientific Method was, and gave status to scientists that followed it successfully, and denied status to scientists that failed to follow it. The King gave Kingly status to the Royal Society, in order to give Kingly status to the Scientific Method. Following World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and Harvard does not know or much care what the Scientific Method is. Following the scientific method is no longer rewarded with status, and violating it no longer penalized by loss of status.
Re: Public Dissentiment
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800 > Razer wrote: > >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of >> global events. > >American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly >taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military >party line. > >The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of >people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with >electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of >course. > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and religious fervor. It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy, again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, but they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. >
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 04:57:19PM -0800, Razer wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 03:43 PM, Mirimir wrote: > > On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote: > >> https://vimeo.com/200927432 > >> > >> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively > >> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating > >> with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment > >> analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts > >> for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed > >> negatively by algorithmic market makers. > >> > >> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, > >> uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created, > >> temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the > >> company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards > >> them. > >> > >> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ <http://publicdissentiment.org/> > > Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;) > > > Speaking of 'investment strategy' I'd like to know who shorted Lockheed > before Trump said that 'thing' about the Lockheed F-35 knocking tens of > billions of dollars of it's share values... for a bit. Trump's cronies > indebted to him and all of their bffs are making bank on the market > volatility created by every stoopid thing Trump says. > > You'd figure all the 'truthers' would be on it... Considering they were > all over the airline shorts pre-911 and never bothered to note all those > airlines were in deep financial trouble and people were naturally > shorting and playing those stock's volatility... Unlike Lockheed's > situation... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. That's the > problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of global events. > 'Down the rabbit hole'. For your "shorting" 'conspiracy' to be true, you'd have to evidence that the pre-9/11 shorts were no more significant than "normal market long + shorting behaviour". Your theory may be correct, IDK, but I'd love to get clarity either which way. Seriously, opinion porn does not help your attack on the "truthers".
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:41:25 -0800 Razer wrote: > > > On 01/26/2017 05:34 PM, the Argentine expletive-spewing ruffled grouse > wrote: > > The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of > > people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with > > electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of > > course. > > What this propaganda artist rayzer, you are the proganda scumbag here - calling you an 'artist' would be like calling a retarded slug an artist. best thing for a motherfuckier like you would be to die. But if we are not that lucky, then you could at least go back to twitter and facebook, the natural enviroment for turds like you.
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 05:34 PM, the Argentine expletive-spewing ruffled grouse wrote: > The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of > people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with > electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of > course. What this propaganda artist (like a child with fingerpaints is an 'artist') is doing is called "Gaslighting". This is also what every rat Trump has appointed to any position that involves 'informing' the public is doing. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/gaslighting-know-it-and-identify-it-protect-yourself Rr
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800 Razer wrote: >... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. > That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of > global events. American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military party line. The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of course.
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 03:43 PM, Mirimir wrote: > On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote: >> https://vimeo.com/200927432 >> >> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively >> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating >> with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment >> analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts >> for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed >> negatively by algorithmic market makers. >> >> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, >> uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created, >> temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the >> company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards >> them. >> >> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ <http://publicdissentiment.org/> > Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;) Speaking of 'investment strategy' I'd like to know who shorted Lockheed before Trump said that 'thing' about the Lockheed F-35 knocking tens of billions of dollars of it's share values... for a bit. Trump's cronies indebted to him and all of their bffs are making bank on the market volatility created by every stoopid thing Trump says. You'd figure all the 'truthers' would be on it... Considering they were all over the airline shorts pre-911 and never bothered to note all those airlines were in deep financial trouble and people were naturally shorting and playing those stock's volatility... Unlike Lockheed's situation... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of global events. 'Down the rabbit hole'. Rr > "In short, The kid wants to break the motherfucking shitstem You > should be afraid of your children. #AbbieHoffman said it way back in > the 60s" https://twitter.com/AuntieImperial/status/824767005433552896
Re: Public Dissentiment
On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote: > https://vimeo.com/200927432 > > Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively > impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating > with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment > analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts > for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed > negatively by algorithmic market makers. > > If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, > uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created, > temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the > company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards > them. > > Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ <http://publicdissentiment.org/> Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;)
Re: Public Dissentiment
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:51 PM, No wrote: > https://vimeo.com/200927432 > > Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively > impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating with > algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment analysis > techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts for social > media that link to news stories that will be viewed negatively by > algorithmic market makers. > > If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, uncertainty > about the targeted company’s stock will be created, temporarily affecting > the price of the stock, consequently making the company’s shareholders > aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards them. > > Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ > Thank you very much, NoNo! <3 I was verifying Derek Curry's projects in his Vimeo channel [1] and wow, I am purring [2] ! There're interesting things [3] ! :D [1] https://vimeo.com/user36629242 [2] https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/catPurrNoiseGenerator.php (not a Derek's project; it's just symbolic purring!) [3] Examples: - http://www.crowdsourcedintel.org/ - https://vimeo.com/154377684 - derekcurry.com/projects/emotionalstress.html <http://www.derekcurry.com/projects/emotionalstress.html> Kisses! I'll forward this message, even knowing Ju@n will complain about the public money being spent in academic researches, etc, etc... I love to provoke him, hihi! :) Ceci
Public Dissentiment
https://vimeo.com/200927432 Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed negatively by algorithmic market makers. If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created, temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards them. Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ <http://publicdissentiment.org/>
