Meanwhile in New York....

[Doomsday Dallas]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5l4TgiqFw

[Patrick Chewing]

Someone tell me hell, demons, and Satan aren't real. I dare ya.

[bladefd]

Hell, demons, and Satan were fairy tales invented by some smart person (or people) to keep people from sinning (and also for control). People need a boogeyman to keep them under control. Only when you have them under your control can you tell them to be a good, kind, selfless person. Otherwise, they will be out there committing crimes and sinning plenty.

Unfortunately, it failed realistically. People kept sinning and doing evil. Only the most gullible and dummies could be controlled by the tale of the various boogeymen. Luckily for the Church & other theological ministries for other religions, a large percentage of humans are very much gullible & dumb so they fit right in for these fairy tales.

[warriorfan]

Hell, demons, and Satan were fairy tales invented by some smart person (or people) to keep people from sinning (and also for control). People need a boogeyman to keep them under control. Only when you have them under your control can you tell them to be a good, kind, selfless person. Otherwise, they will be out there committing crimes and sinning plenty.

Unfortunately, it failed realistically. People kept sinning and doing evil. Only the most gullible and dummies could be controlled by the tale of the various boogeymen. Luckily for the Church & other theological ministries for other religions, a large percentage of humans are very much gullible & dumb so they fit right in for these fairy tales.

Lmaaaaaaooooooo

Nice self awareness

[Long Duck Dong]

Hell, demons, and Satan were fairy tales invented by some smart person (or people) to keep people from sinning (and also for control). People need a boogeyman to keep them under control. Only when you have them under your control can you tell them to be a good, kind, selfless person. Otherwise, they will be out there committing crimes and sinning plenty.

Unfortunately, it failed realistically. People kept sinning and doing evil. Only the most gullible and dummies could be controlled by the tale of the various boogeymen. Luckily for the Church & other theological ministries for other religions, a large percentage of humans are very much gullible & dumb so they fit right in for these fairy tales.

Right. And the new religions are things like racism and climate change. Not to say that man made global warming and racism doesn't exist at all but rather the extreme consequences put forward by the leaders who want to control us with it

Isn't Miami and parts of NYC supposed to be underwater by now? The polar ice caps completely melted? The polar bears all dead etc. Like as if technology won't soon eliminate the need for fossil fuels and we won't be able to control our own weather within a few generations. The fact that they had to change the name to a catchall phrase like climate change tells me this 100% a new religion.

And then you have racism. Like if Hitler and the KKK are ever coming back. Wasn't the US supposed to return to the Jim Crowe era under Trump? :lol What happened? Equality for the individual is almost perfectly balanced, if not in favor of "minorities" who aren't even the minority anymore.

You people will be laughed at by future generations for the ridiculous predictions by your new religious leaders who don't personally follow these ideals themselves but have no problem using them to prop themselves up to fame, money and power

[RRR3]

Right. And the new religions are things like racism and climate change. Not to say that man made global warming and racism doesn't exist at all but rather the extreme consequences put forward by the leaders who want to control us with it

Isn't Miami and parts of NYC supposed to be underwater by now? The polar ice caps completely melted? The polar bears all dead etc. Like as if technology won't soon eliminate the need for fossil fuels and we won't be able to control our own weather within a few generations. The fact that they had to change the name to a catchall phrase like climate change tells me this 100% a new religion.

And then you have racism. Like if Hitler and the KKK are ever coming back. Wasn't the US supposed to return to the Jim Crowe era under Trump? :lol What happened? Equality for the individual is almost perfectly balanced, if not in favor of "minorities" who aren't even the minority anymore.

You people will be laughed at by future generations for the ridiculous predictions by your new religious leaders who don't personally follow these ideals themselves but have no problem using them to prop themselves up to fame, money and power
Denying climate change at this point is certainly bold. I actually desperately want you to be right on this issue, I don't want humanity to go extinct. Unfortunately you aren't right. If you think a Hitler like figure couldn't exist again in some country, you're ignorant of world history and even contemporary events.

[bladefd]

Right. And the new religions are things like racism and climate change. Not to say that man made global warming and racism doesn't exist at all but rather the extreme consequences put forward by the leaders who want to control us with it

Isn't Miami and parts of NYC supposed to be underwater by now? The polar ice caps completely melted? The polar bears all dead etc. Like as if technology won't soon eliminate the need for fossil fuels and we won't be able to control our own weather within a few generations. The fact that they had to change the name to a catchall phrase like climate change tells me this 100% a new religion.

And then you have racism. Like if Hitler and the KKK are ever coming back. Wasn't the US supposed to return to the Jim Crowe era under Trump? :lol What happened? Equality for the individual is almost perfectly balanced, if not in favor of "minorities" who aren't even the minority anymore.

You people will be laughed at by future generations for the ridiculous predictions by your new religious leaders who don't personally follow these ideals themselves but have no problem using them to prop themselves up to fame, money and power

There is actual evidence behind climate change unlike any of the major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc) that prop up all these boogeymen.

The predictions of when x, y, z is supposed to happen have been wrong. It shows you that we suck at predictions. However, the science behind it is rock solid.

Also, it was a Republican strategist science-skeptic named Frank Luntz who told Fox News in the early 2000s to use the term 'climate change' and not 'global warming' because he/Fox had ulterior motives. They wanted to spin it into saying "Climate change? Look, the climate is always changing, and we humans have nothing to do with it." I think that's what you were referring to.

Republicans tried for a long time to deny climate change is happening (or then trying the "climate is always changing. Look it's snowing outside!!" nonsense), but now they can't because the science is full-proof at this point. The public widely supports green initiatives. I will allow you to guess who will be laughed at for the next few generations/decades.

[Long Duck Dong]

Denying climate change at this point is certainly bold. I actually desperately want you to be right on this issue, I don't want humanity to go extinct. Unfortunately you aren't right. If you think a Hitler like figure couldn't exist again in some country, you're ignorant of world history and even contemporary events.

If humanity is going to go extinct because of global warming, we are already doomed no matter what we do now. The difference in climate change action has more to do with technology than policy. The difference in action against the use of CO2 emitting devices is 10 years max between the camps of the religious zealots who want to heavily regulate our lives and throw massive amounts of taxpayer money at green tech entrepreneurs plus line their own pockets and pockets of their friends, and those who are willing to wait for the technology to eventually coming around. 10 more years of air pollution won't decide the fate of the world. We are still little ants to this mighty planet. We give ourselves way too much credit

[bladefd]

Also if you are interested.. Terms changed in approximately this order: climate modification (when they didn't know what was the cause in the 1950s/60s), climate change, global warming, and global change. You probably won't see climate modification or global change anywhere (global change was never widely adopted). So anyways, climate change (coined in 1975 (https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html)) is an even older term than global warming.

Climate change is a general term that encompasses much including global warming. Global warming is a specific reference to temperatures rising. As you may know, there are many other issues involved in this phenomenon than just temperatures rising, including ozone depletion, ice-caps melting, increasing animal extinctions, deforestation, etc.

The cause for climate change is rising greenhouse emissions due to a manmade increase in CO2 from burning coal, oil, natural gas, etc (can't forget about excess methane from so many farm animals due to meat demand & no2 from other manmade processes). Global warming is an effect of this increasing greenhouse effect. Climate change includes everything so climate change is probably a more accurate term to use when we talk about the totality of the issue. Global warming is one part of the overall issue.

[RRR3]

If humanity is going to go extinct because of global warming, we are already doomed no matter what we do now. The difference in climate change action has more to do with technology than policy. The difference in action against the use of CO2 emitting devices is 10 years max between the camps of the religious zealots who want to heavily regulate our lives and throw massive amounts of taxpayer money at green tech entrepreneurs plus line their own pockets and pockets of their friends, and those who are willing to wait for the technology to eventually coming around. 10 more years of air pollution won't decide the fate of the world. We are still little ants to this mighty planet. We give ourselves way too much credit
Probably true tbh, because people didn't listen and decided money was more important than the future of the human race. You should always try to mitigate damage. You realize those green energy taxes wouldn't even add to what people pay already if we just stopped spending so much pointless money on the military and police right?

[FultzNationRISE]

So, for some context here, virtual learning is probably the future of schooling. Klaus Schwab referenced this in a video circa 2016, so you know it’s on the menu. For one thing, the energy cost of transporting 5 billion kids to and from school every single day is significant, and at this point largely unnecessary. Of course the accidental unplanned COVID crisis increased development and investment into virtual learning tools, and there are now schools offering virtual learning options even post-COVID.

Moreover, school curriculum is probably going to get far more technical and require more frequent updates to information as the rate of change in society increases. Many conventional school teachers probably wont even be cut out for the job in 20 years.

I wouldnt be surprised if turning public schools into circuses is a soft push toward getting more and more parents to put their kids into virtual learning progs.

[Long Duck Dong]

Probably true tbh, because people didn't listen and decided money was more important than the future of the human race. You should always try to mitigate damage. You realize those green energy taxes wouldn't even add to what people pay already if we just stopped spending so much pointless money on the military and police right?


Once the technology is available people will adopt it. All the virtue signaling, green energy investments with taxpayer money and business crippling regulation has a very minor effect in the big picture of things.

Yet no one is trying or even talking about doing the single most effective thing against co2 emissions. Population control. Why? Because the politicians and climate change opportunists/religious leaders haven't figured out a way to profit, obtain power and gain fame from it

[RRR3]

Once the technology is available people will adopt it. All the virtue signaling, green energy investments with taxpayer money and business crippling regulation has a very minor effect in the big picture of things.

Yet no one is trying or even talking about doing the single most effective thing against co2 emissions. Population control. Why? Because the politicians and climate change opportunists/religious leaders haven't figured out a way to profit, obtain power and gain fame from it
But that isn't true. China did population control and they're still one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Population control doesn't address the main issue, which is a small group of people causing the systems to be set up in a way which is destroying the climate.

[Long Duck Dong]

But that isn't true. China did population control and they're still one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Population control doesn't address the main issue, which is a small group of people causing the systems to be set up in a way which is destroying the climate.

Do I really need to argue why a significant population reduction will bring down co2 emissions faster than just about anything else?

Apparently the virtue signaling opinion leaders haven't made it a cool topic yet

[RRR3]

Do I really need to argue why a significant population reduction will bring down co2 emissions faster than just about anything else?
You absolutely do need to argue how population control is going to change global capitalist hegemony for the better, yeah. Most pollution is being produced by a (relatively) small group of people.

[Long Duck Dong]

You absolutely do need to argue how population control is going to change global capitalist hegemony for the better, yeah. Most pollution is being produced by a (relatively) small group of people.

Fair enough but then you should be adamantly against immigration into these nations where a person from Honduras will have a 25x larger carbon footprint moving to the US versus staying back at home. But no, "Duh wall be racist! Let dem in!"

You also need to limit the population in the nations which are currently destroying our carbon sinks through deforestation. I got a feeling those definitely aren't the same people you're talking about

[RRR3]

Fair enough but then you should be adamantly against immigration into these nations where a person from Honduras will have a 25x larger carbon footprint moving to the US versus staying back at home. But no, "Duh wall be racist! Let dem in!"

You also need to limit the population in the nations which are currently destroying our carbon sinks through deforestation. I got a feeling those definitely aren't the same people you're talking about
I don’t have to be anti immigration because I’m not a capitalist. **** being anti immigration the main polluters are the people in charge not the workers. The workers just operate the machinery created by the people in charge. Perhaps if I was still a socdem I would support immigration restrictions (you will find posts from me from 2020 supporting immigration restrictions for instance) but I’m not as I have soured on any idea of government whatsoever and I can’t morally justify restricting immigration. Being for restricted immigration isn’t necessarily racist (Bernie was at one point for instance) but it generally becomes that way. I want the whole system changed and all people in charge removed with a sustainable communal environment replacing it…I’m an anarchist. Not sure what country you’re talking about but I was referring to every country on earth and their ruling classes. The ruling class is a problem in every nation. That’s why I want anarchy.

[FultzNationRISE]

But that isn't true. China did population control and they're still one of the biggest polluters on the planet. Population control doesn't address the main issue, which is a small group of people causing the systems to be set up in a way which is destroying the climate.

China is an exception because their whole country is essentially the world’s designated factory.

LDD is right, studies have been done about the most significant ways a person contributes to emissions - driving a car, eating a steak, flying abroad etc - and by far number 1 is to have a child, who will end up doing all those things multiple times throughout their increasingly long lifespan.

That said, somebody’s gotta be around for the future. If anyone should be having kids it’s people in the developed world. The people who’s growth would be best tempered is elsewhere.

It’s a touchy subject but the upper middle class is a distinct genetic class of capability. Not everyone is equal within a given society and not every society is equal to each other. We’re at a point in history where a lot of fairly smart people arent reproducing and this is going to have a hugely under appreciated effect on the future.

[FultzNationRISE]

I don’t have to be anti immigration because I’m not a capitalist. **** being anti immigration the main polluters are the people in charge not the workers. The workers just operate the machinery created by the people in charge. Perhaps if I was still a socdem I would support immigration restrictions (you will find posts from me from 2020 supporting immigration restrictions for instance) but I’m not as I have soured on any idea of government whatsoever and I can’t morally justify restricting immigration. Being for restricted immigration isn’t necessarily racist (Bernie was at one point for instance) but it generally becomes that way. I want the whole system changed and all people in charge removed with a sustainable communal environment replacing it…I’m an anarchist. Not sure what country you’re talking about but I was referring to every country on earth and their ruling classes. The ruling class is a problem in every nation. That’s why I want anarchy.


I mean nobody takes anything you say seriously anyway so none of whatever you said there really matters.

[RRR3]

China is an exception because their whole country is essentially the world’s designated factory.

LDD is right, studies have been done about the most significant ways a person contributes to emissions - driving a car, eating a steak, flying abroad etc - and by far number 1 is to have a child, who will end up doing all those things multiple times throughout their increasingly long lifespan.

That said, somebody’s gotta be around for the future. If anyone should be having kids it’s people in the developed world. The people who’s growth would be best tempered is elsewhere.

It’s a touchy subject but the upper middle class is a distinct genetic class of capability. Not everyone is equal within a given society and not every society is equal to each other. We’re at a point in history where a lot of fairly smart people arent reproducing and this is going to have a hugely under appreciated effect on the future.
Ok so your solution is what? No one is gonna support mass extermination besides literal Nazis.

[SouBeachTalents]

Once the technology is available people will adopt it. All the virtue signaling, green energy investments with taxpayer money and business crippling regulation has a very minor effect in the big picture of things.

Yet no one is trying or even talking about doing the single most effective thing against co2 emissions. Population control. Why? Because the politicians and climate change opportunists/religious leaders haven't figured out a way to profit, obtain power and gain fame from it

China is an exception because their whole country is essentially the world’s designated factory.

LDD is right, studies have been done about the most significant ways a person contributes to emissions - driving a car, eating a steak, flying abroad etc - and by far number 1 is to have a child, who will end up doing all those things multiple times throughout their increasingly long lifespan.

That said, somebody’s gotta be around for the future. If anyone should be having kids it’s people in the developed world. The people who’s growth would be best tempered is elsewhere.

It’s a touchy subject but the upper middle class is a distinct genetic class of capability. Not everyone is equal within a given society and not every society is equal to each other. We’re at a point in history where a lot of fairly smart people arent reproducing and this is going to have a hugely under appreciated effect on the future.
Bill Maher literally just talked about this on his latest show :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc&t=1s&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher

[SATAN]

Once the technology is available people will adopt it. All the virtue signaling, green energy investments with taxpayer money and business crippling regulation has a very minor effect in the big picture of things.

Yet no one is trying or even talking about doing the single most effective thing against co2 emissions. Population control. Why? Because the politicians and climate change opportunists/religious leaders haven't figured out a way to profit, obtain power and gain fame from it

:facepalm

[FultzNationRISE]

Ok so your solution is what? No one is gonna support mass extermination besides literal Nazis.


We could stop giving poor countries our technology, medicine, resources, loans, etc. and leave their societies to them, allow them to live as they have for thousands of years right up until very recently. This will reduce their energy consumption and populations numbers, and a big part of the problem is solved. The only reason we invest in them now anyway is for corporate profits, not because anyone gives a shit about starving people in shit hole countries 9,000 miles away. It’s done for profit, and supporting those billionaire environmental pillagers gives plebs like you the feeling of playing rescuer. But it’s a real physical environmental problem headed right at us.

Being more isolationist and not exploiting every corner of the planet is not “mass extermination.” It’s putting our planetary future first which is the natural human thing to do.

Youre such a soyboy.

[RRR3]

We could stop giving poor countries our technology, medicine, resources, loans, etc. and leave their societies to them, allow them to live as they have for thousands of years right up until very recently. This will reduce their energy consumption and populations numbers, and a big part of the problem is solved. The only reason we invest in them now anyway is for corporate profits, not because anyone gives a shit about starving people in shit hole countries 9,000 miles away. It’s done for profit, and supporting those billionaire environmental pillagers gives plebs like you the feeling of playing rescuer. But it’s a real physical environmental problem headed right at us.

Being more isolationist and not exploiting every corner of the planet is not “mass extermination.” It’s putting our planetary future first which is the natural human thing to do.

Youre such a soyboy.
You literally don’t understand how capitalism works. We’re not going to stop doing soft imperialism under this system lol

[FultzNationRISE]

You literally don’t understand how capitalism works. We’re not going to stop doing soft imperialism under this system lol

We can easily regulate/restrict trade with certain countries for the sake of Earth’s existence. It would not be met with serious grassroots opposition.

Youre stanning billionaires right now in order to maintain your delusional sense of identity as a woke hero ‘rescuer.’ (Newsflash: guy sitting in his moms basement is not rescuing anyone).

You have no other source of pride so youre letting billionaires use your face as a toilet and you get to tell people youre fighting teh nazizez. Probably all because you think it’s a way of impressing those few unshaven feminists out there you think you might remotely have a chance with.

Good job, bilionaiRRR3 lackey.

[RRR3]

We can easily regulate/restrict trade with certain countries for the sake of Earth’s existence. It would not be met with serious grassroots opposition.

Youre stanning billionaires right now in order to maintain your delusional sense of identity as a woke hero ‘rescuer.’ (Newsflash: guy sitting in his moms basement is not rescuing anyone).

You have no other source of pride so youre letting billionaires use your face as a toilet. Probably you think it’s gonna impress girl.

Good job, bilionaiRRR3 lackey.
Every post you make displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’m saying and then quickly devolves into a tantrum. Can’t imagine being as angry as you are constantly.

Good luck getting capitalist countries to go isolationist :lol

[FultzNationRISE]

Every post you make displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I’m saying and then quickly devolves into a tantrum. Can’t imagine being as angry as you are constantly.

Good luck getting capitalist countries to go isolationist :lol


Ok.

Good luck with your existence being pain.

[RRR3]

:mad:
Nothing but ad homs when his lil pea brain can’t think of more arguments. Poor fella

[Patrick Chewing]

I don’t have to be anti immigration because I’m not a capitalist. **** being anti immigration the main polluters are the people in charge not the workers. The workers just operate the machinery created by the people in charge. Perhaps if I was still a socdem I would support immigration restrictions (you will find posts from me from 2020 supporting immigration restrictions for instance) but I’m not as I have soured on any idea of government whatsoever and I can’t morally justify restricting immigration. Being for restricted immigration isn’t necessarily racist (Bernie was at one point for instance) but it generally becomes that way. I want the whole system changed and all people in charge removed with a sustainable communal environment replacing it…I’m an anarchist. Not sure what country you’re talking about but I was referring to every country on earth and their ruling classes. The ruling class is a problem in every nation. That’s why I want anarchy.

You're such a ****ing weirdo :oldlol:

"I'm an anarchist" :roll:

[RRR3]

I used too many big words in that post, I forgot I have to speak in caveman for chewing.


Me no like governments. Chewing get now?

[Lakers Legend#32]

I used too many big words in that post, I forgot I have to speak in caveman for chewing.


Me no like governments. Chewing get now?

:roll::roll::roll:

[Long Duck Dong]

https://youtu.be/N9TLhKnRdy0:wtf:

Multiple conviction violent felon, registered sex offender and lifetime parolee strikes some Asian or Latino guy he's had no contact with with on the streets of NY. Victim has a broken jaw and brain bleeding, still in hospital since Wednesday in critical but stable condition. Dude was charged with felony assault. Judge dropped charges to a misdemeanor and he was released back on the street less than 24 hours later after attack

No room in jail? :confusedshrug: Yet NY is spending millions in taxpayer money housing thousands of illegal aliens in 4 star hotels :lol

[Off the Court]

That's the excuse? There is no room in jail? If we don't have enough room for violent assault then building larger prisons should be priority #1.

That guy should be locked up for life.

[Long Duck Dong]

Its what happens when republicans push to incarcerate individuals for petty crimes like marijane posessions or not paying some parking tickets haha, this is what you get, overfilled prisons.

All those damn Republican politicians, judges and prosecutors in NYC. I knew there was a reason for NY judges slapping these violent criminals on the wrist.

But seriously, I have no idea why NY is letting violent criminals walk. I was just guessing. The news didn't offer a reason why.

[Long Duck Dong]

That's the excuse? There is no room in jail? If we don't have enough room for violent assault then building larger prisons should be priority #1.

That guy should be locked up for life.

And what's the point of parole if dude can pick a random guy off the street and put him in critical condition, then be released in a few hours. :lol

And he only did 3 years for violently raping a 17 year old girl at gunpoint

Edit: I just saw a few more details. It was the Bronx DA, not the judge, who decided to reduce his charges to misdemeanor assault and harrassment after the cops arrested him on ATTEMPTED MURDER. How does a DA see a guy brought to him by the cops with attempted murder and decide '
"Naw that's too harsh. I'm gonna charge him with misdemeanor harassment" :facepalm

[Jasper]

Someone tell me hell, demons, and Satan aren't real. I dare ya.

there is a dodge driver that works as a jewelry clerk and is dangerous as all hell walking the NY streets.

They call him the creeper.

[Nanners]

Right. And the new religions are things like racism and climate change. Not to say that man made global warming and racism doesn't exist at all but rather the extreme consequences put forward by the leaders who want to control us with it

This right here x1000. If I had a nickel for every time some Portland libtard says they arent religious while blindly believing everything their TV says about scientific topics like covid or climate change... and the craziest thing about this new religion of scientism is that when I provide science based challenges to their claims, they call me anti-science - even though I have multiple science degrees and make a living doing science while they have a degree in something like literature and make a living doing something like writing marketing tweets.


Isn't Miami and parts of NYC supposed to be underwater by now? The polar ice caps completely melted? The polar bears all dead etc. Like as if technology won't soon eliminate the need for fossil fuels and we won't be able to control our own weather within a few generations. The fact that they had to change the name to a catchall phrase like climate change tells me this 100% a new religion.

Pay no attention to the fact that sea levels have not measurably risen at all in the past ~150 years, or the fact that climate change crusader Bill Gates just spent $50m on an oceanfront lot in San Deigo and is currently spending tens of millions more to build a gargantuan oceanside mansion... just shut up and eat your bugs


You people will be laughed at by future generations for the ridiculous predictions by your new religious leaders who don't personally follow these ideals themselves but have no problem using them to prop themselves up to fame, money and power

They are being laughed at by their religious leaders right now. People like Bill Gates think its hilarious when they are able to trick people into believing obvious bullshit.

[bladefd]

This right here x1000. If I had a nickel for every time some Portland libtard says they arent religious while blindly believing everything their TV says about scientific topics like covid or climate change... and the craziest thing about this new religion of scientism is that when I provide science based challenges to their claims, they call me anti-science - even though I have multiple science degrees and make a living doing science while they have a degree in something like literature and make a living doing something like writing marketing tweets.


Pay no attention to the fact that sea levels have not measurably risen at all in the past ~150 years, or the fact that climate change crusader Bill Gates just spent $50m on an oceanfront lot in San Deigo and is currently spending tens of millions more to build a gargantuan oceanside mansion... just shut up and eat your bugs



They are being laughed at by their religious leaders right now. People like Bill Gates think its hilarious when they are able to trick people into believing obvious bullshit.

You are not a scientist. You don't have a single degree in science with the amount of nonsense you post. After reading some of your posts about climate change, it is easy for me to conclude that you are clueless about the basics of climate change.

[theman93]

You are not a scientist. You don't have a single degree in science with the amount of nonsense you post. After reading some of your posts about climate change, it is easy for me to conclude that you are clueless about the basics of climate change.

These basics?

https://i.ibb.co/J7xXYfY/climatehoax.png

[Nanners]

You are not a scientist. You don't have a single degree in science with the amount of nonsense you post. After reading some of your posts about climate change, it is easy for me to conclude that you are clueless about the basics of climate change.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the scientism religion that I was talking about in my post.

You make it crystal clear that you have literally zero knowledge about anything scientific whatsoever, you just believe whatever youre told to believe... and yet you think that anybody who doesnt subscribe to the beliefs youve been sold are somehow clueless about science. :oldlol:

The religion of scientism results in people with zero scientific knowledge thinking that they are experts simply because they obediently regurgitate the nonsense that is fed to them by the mainstream media and their advertisers.

[bladefd]

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of the scientism religion that I was talking about in my post.

You make it crystal clear that you have literally zero knowledge about anything scientific whatsoever, you just believe whatever youre told to believe... and yet you think that anybody who doesnt subscribe to the beliefs youve been sold are somehow clueless about science. :oldlol:

The religion of scientism results in people with zero scientific knowledge thinking that they are experts simply because they obediently regurgitate the nonsense that is fed to them by the mainstream media and their advertisers.

Did 4chan tell you that? Stick to 4chan where you belong.

[Patrick Chewing]

Its what happens when republicans push to incarcerate individuals for petty crimes like marijane posessions or not paying some parking tickets haha, this is what you get, overfilled prisons.

Republicans don't control New York. You can't just blindly blame Republicans for everything. :oldlol:

[Nanners]

Did 4chan tell you that? Stick to 4chan where you belong.

No your mom told it to me right before she said she wished she had aborted you.

Dont worry, i slapped the shit out of her for that comment... we all know abortion is always wrong, even if the child suffers from severe mental disabilities like you do.

[Patrick Chewing]

No your mom told it to me right before she said she wished she had aborted you.

Dont worry, i slapped the shit out of her for that comment... we all know abortion is always wrong, even if the child suffers from severe mental disabilities like you do.

https://c.tenor.com/a4IzdSGz280AAAAC/stanley-heart-attack-stanley-the-office.gif

[Long Duck Dong]

You are not a scientist. You don't have a single degree in science with the amount of nonsense you post. After reading some of your posts about climate change, it is easy for me to conclude that you are clueless about the basics of climate change.

Scientists so far are 0 for 40 in their 20th century doomsday predictions that would severely impact life on the planet by the early 21st century. That doesn't include things that aren't a necessity for life like the world supposedly running out of oil by 2015.

Pollution is real and probably 98% of the western nation populations realize that it's unsustainable for our planet. Your regular Joe Smoe also realizes that some science is used for self serving purposes like funding, political gain, control of the masses, profit and virtue signaling. These ulterior motives started long before climate change and will continue on long after it. The population is right to be skeptical of stuff like this, action will be taken and we will all decide in time what and when that happens. The entire populace will not be bullied or shamed into accepting another doomsday prediction on face value until the results are obvious to most of us.

[bladefd]

No your mom told it to me right before she said she wished she had aborted you.

Dont worry, i slapped the shit out of her for that comment... we all know abortion is always wrong, even if the child suffers from severe mental disabilities like you do.

Why are you regurgitating what your mama told you when you were growing up? Did you slap her too?

[bladefd]

Scientists so far are 0 for 40 in their 20th century doomsday predictions that would severely impact life on the planet by the early 21st century. That doesn't include things that aren't a necessity for life like the world supposedly running out of oil by 2015.

Pollution is real and probably 98% of the western nation populations realize that it's unsustainable for our planet. Your regular Joe Smoe also realizes that some science is used for self serving purposes like funding, political gain, control of the masses, profit and virtue signaling. These ulterior motives started long before climate change and will continue on long after it. The population is right to be skeptical of stuff like this, action will be taken and we will all decide in time what and when that happens. The entire populace will not be bullied or shamed into accepting another doomsday prediction on face value until the results are obvious to most of us.

Like I said to you before, we humans (including scientists) are not good at predicting the future. Past data & present data do not guarantee future data. Why do you think 95% of people can't do well day-trading?? We suck at predicting. We don't take stock analysts at face value just like weather analysts. You take future predictions with a grain of sand. Just because the predictions of the future are wrong doesn't mean the data is wrong.

[FultzNationRISE]

Like I said to you before, we humans (including scientists) are not good at predicting the future. Past data & present data do not guarantee future data. Why do you think 95% of people can't do well day-trading?? We suck at predicting. We don't take stock analysts at face value just like weather analysts. You take future predictions with a grain of sand. Just because the predictions of the future are wrong doesn't mean the data is wrong.


So I guess the question is... why do you continue to use 'science' as a justification for your mindless obeisance to politicians?

Perhaps science is not the cause and obedience the effect, but rather... an obedient nature is the cause, and science the useful guise?

Food for thought.

[jstern]

Its what happens when republicans push to incarcerate individuals for petty crimes like marijane posessions or not paying some parking tickets haha, this is what you get, overfilled prisons.

The guy wasn't released because there was no space for him. There was plenty of space for him. He was released because of current woke bail reform laws that considers what he did not worthy of bail.

[theman93]

Like I said to you before, we humans (including scientists) are not good at predicting the future. Past data & present data do not guarantee future data. Why do you think 95% of people can't do well day-trading?? We suck at predicting. We don't take stock analysts at face value just like weather analysts. You take future predictions with a grain of sand. Just because the predictions of the future are wrong doesn't mean the data is wrong.
So humans are not good at predicting the future.

But we need to completely flip upside down the way we live our day to day lives because of....predictions of the future?

LOL :facepalm

[Jasper]

Patrick 66% :milton

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/23/us/elections/results-new-york.html

[bladefd]

Predicting the future = "In 10 years, Earth will get struck by an asteroid." "In 2 years, Elon Musk will be the first trillionaire." "Microsoft stock will be $1,000 in 12 months." "We will land humans on Mars by 2035." "We will have personal quantum computers by 2040." "All ice-caps will melt by 2045."

We suck at predicting x will happen by date y. If they don't pan out by that exact date, ignorant idiots (like in this thread) would attempt to thrash the scientific theory altogether. That's why good scientists (and doctors too tbh) use probability. i.e. say there is an x% probability y will happen by z. For example, a weatherman might say "there is 40% chance of rain on Friday" or an astrophysicist might say "there is a 2% chance asteroid x hits Earth in year 2026." It's not hedging your bet, but you are also not giving exact dates or predicting events happen by certain dates a certain way. With something complex like climate change, there is no way to 100% guarantee x event will happen by y. If future predictions of future events were or are still made by some scientist, it is irresponsible.

Having said that, we can also study and understand patterns. Ofc past data doesn't guarantee future data, but it can establish a pattern. Understanding these patterns and using probability go hand-in-hand. It can help guide you, but it's still not a crystal ball. There is no crystal ball in science or medicine or engineering.

Also, I don't take science opinions from politicians seriously. They don't typically know basic science and/or don't understand probability. They usually are not science literate. Same when it comes to media members presenting science reports. Don't take the presentation at face value because they might not have a proper understanding of the science behind it or may not have any science background.

[warriorfan]

Predicting the future = "In 10 years, Earth will get struck by an asteroid." "In 2 years, Elon Musk will be the first trillionaire." "Microsoft stock will be $1,000 in 12 months." "We will land humans on Mars by 2035." "We will have personal quantum computers by 2040." "All ice-caps will melt by 2045."

We suck at predicting x will happen by date y. If they don't pan out by that exact date, ignorant idiots (like in this thread) would attempt to thrash the scientific theory altogether. That's why good scientists (and doctors too tbh) use probability. i.e. say there is an x% probability y will happen by z. For example, a weatherman might say "there is 40% chance of rain on Friday" or an astrophysicist might say "there is a 2% chance asteroid x hits Earth in year 2026." It's not hedging your bet, but you are also not giving exact dates or predicting events happen by certain dates a certain way. With something complex like climate change, there is no way to 100% guarantee x event will happen by y. If future predictions of future events were or are still made by some scientist, it is irresponsible.

Having said that, we can also study and understand patterns. Ofc past data doesn't guarantee future data, but it can establish a pattern. Understanding these patterns and using probability go hand-in-hand. It can help guide you, but it's still not a crystal ball. There is no crystal ball in science or medicine or engineering.

Also, I don't take science opinions from politicians seriously. They don't typically know basic science and/or don't understand probability. They usually are not science literate. Same when it comes to media members presenting science reports. Don't take the presentation at face value because they might not have a proper understanding of the science behind it or may not have any science background.

Politicians influence scientists which then get their favorable spin on the data broadcasted to everyone through the media.

[SATAN]

https://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/head-in-sand.png-900x419.png

:facepalm

[Patrick Chewing]

Predicting the future = "In 10 years, Earth will get struck by an asteroid." "In 2 years, Elon Musk will be the first trillionaire." "Microsoft stock will be $1,000 in 12 months." "We will land humans on Mars by 2035." "We will have personal quantum computers by 2040." "All ice-caps will melt by 2045."

We suck at predicting x will happen by date y. If they don't pan out by that exact date, ignorant idiots (like in this thread) would attempt to thrash the scientific theory altogether. That's why good scientists (and doctors too tbh) use probability. i.e. say there is an x% probability y will happen by z. For example, a weatherman might say "there is 40% chance of rain on Friday" or an astrophysicist might say "there is a 2% chance asteroid x hits Earth in year 2026." It's not hedging your bet, but you are also not giving exact dates or predicting events happen by certain dates a certain way. With something complex like climate change, there is no way to 100% guarantee x event will happen by y. If future predictions of future events were or are still made by some scientist, it is irresponsible.

Having said that, we can also study and understand patterns. Ofc past data doesn't guarantee future data, but it can establish a pattern. Understanding these patterns and using probability go hand-in-hand. It can help guide you, but it's still not a crystal ball. There is no crystal ball in science or medicine or engineering.

Also, I don't take science opinions from politicians seriously. They don't typically know basic science and/or don't understand probability. They usually are not science literate. Same when it comes to media members presenting science reports. Don't take the presentation at face value because they might not have a proper understanding of the science behind it or may not have any science background.


What's the difference?? All your probabilities have been wrong too. :lol

[bladefd]

What's the difference?? All your probabilities have been wrong too. :lol

There is a vast difference between giving the exact year something will happen versus the probability something will happen by that year. A responsible scientific study/report typically gives you a probability of something happening, but you often also see ranges in time. i.e. If we continue at the current trajectory, ice cap x will be completely melted between 2045 and 2055."

Also, keep in mind the media usually reports on scientific studies, not the scientists themselves (unless if it's some massive breaking news). It then becomes 2nd hand information via some media member. The media has a tendency to sensationalize things (including scientific studies) so they often cherry-pick certain details that suit their point. As I said, many media members who report on scientific studies also often don't even have a science background so they may misinterpret the facts. They often also misconstrue things purposely, and the problem is once the article is out there, it's out there. Even if some of the scientists from the original study say the article is incorrect or misconstrued the facts, it's too late. People will remember the original sensationalism.

That doesn't mean that there have not been incorrect scientific studies on climate science in the last few decades. Or that certain scientists didn't try to sensationalize news for their benefit. Or that some irresponsible scientist didn't go out there making predictions that he had no business making. I bet each of those things has happened, but that doesn't mean you throw out the entire scientific theory over a few bad apples. People have been trying to dispute the fact that climate change is happening since the 80s*. Around the mid-2000s (and still often today), the argument shifted to "climate has always been changing so absolutely nothing is wrong." These days, you typically hear "Yes, climate change is happening, but humans have nothing to do with it." The truth is that Climate Change Theory is on a very strong platform as far as the evidence is concerned. It's happening. Humans have a hand in it happening. That's the truth.



*Technically, oil companies were the first to know climate change is happening, and they had been trying to hide the facts since probably the 50s. They began disputing heavily initially when the facts began to come out in the 70s. They realize now that they can no longer hide the facts.

[theman93]

We're in so much trouble. Just look at where we are in comparison to the generations before us. I have no idea how they survived while meanwhile we are on the brink of extinction. I will own nothing and be happy while sticking to a strict cicade diet if it means stopping the climate from changing!

https://i.ibb.co/J7xXYfY/climatehoax.png

[Long Duck Dong]

https://youtu.be/qPMfu5zkRIw

What's with all these people being randomly attacked in NY? Rape, robbery, and revenge you can at least wrap your head around but this is nuts.

[Nanners]

Why are you regurgitating what your mama told you when you were growing up? Did you slap her too?

I slap all women

[Long Duck Dong]

New York keeps trying to invent New Ways to turn their city into a shithole. Landlords will no longer be able to check the criminal status of tenant applicants, only sex offenders on the registry. But murderers and violent felons, the libs got your back

[Off the Court]

New York keeps trying to invent New Ways to turn their city into a shithole. Landlords will no longer be able to check the criminal status of tenant applicants, only sex offenders on the registry. But murderers and violent felons, the libs got your back
It's a bill that hasn't passed yet and it's just NYC not the state.

The insane rent prices in NYC pretty much filter out most criminals anyway and NYC has a low violent crime rate.

[Long Duck Dong]

It's a bill that hasn't passed yet and it's just NYC not the state.

The insane rent prices in NYC pretty much filter out most criminals anyway and NYC has a low violent crime rate.

NYC violent crime is up 25% and 40% in the subway. You can't really compare NYC crime to almost anywhere else in the US because of it's population density which is 3x that of LA or 4x that of Chicago. Their bad areas are further spread out and consolidated versus NYC where it's all close by and lots of people in decent parts of the city see and feel it.

There's a reason people are leaving NYC in droves to Republican states.

[Off the Court]

NYC violent crime is up 25% and 40% in the subway. You can't really compare NYC crime to almost anywhere else in the US because of it's population density which is 3x that of LA or 4x that of Chicago. Their bad areas are further spread out and consolidated versus NYC where it's all close by and lots of people in decent parts of the city see and feel it.

There's a reason people are leaving NYC in droves to Republican states.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/206267/resident-population-in-new-york/

NY population is rising and Republican states have way higher crime rates.

Poor get priced out, that might be happening, but no one in NY is saying "it's scary here let's move to Mississippi"