Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 30th, 2017, 11:41 pm

Steve3007 wrote:OK. Got it. Have fun with that.
Facts are problematic? Agenda 21 is well advertized by the architects of it.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 3:06 am

It's usually not the dots that are the problem. It's the imaginative pictures that some people draw when they join them up.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 5:54 am

Steve3007 wrote:It's usually not the dots that are the problem. It's the imaginative pictures that some people draw when they join them up.
By avoiding the conversation, lack of questions - not opining on an existing document that could be in question, leaves only imagination. If my pictures are pure imagination then one should counter them with their presumed facts. If you know nothing about Agenda 21 then you could say so. If you are aware of it but do not want to talk about it then you should be honest about that. Otherwise it comes across as pure snobbery, as if to say "I am above such matters" or "just accept I know everything".

Here are transcribed excerpts from a Dr Jordan Peterson talk, video link below (which of itself is only a 12 min excerpt from the longer talk).

"I think one thing we should have learned from the 20th century, but of course didn't, was that there is something incredibly dangerous about totalitarian/utopian visions, at something Dotsoevsky wrote about in his great book 'Notes From Underground' which Dotsoevsky figured out by the early 1900s that there was something very pathological about a utopian vision of perfection, that it was profoundly anti-human. Dotsoevsky said imagine that you brought the socialist utopia into being and that human beings had nothing to do except eat, drink and busy themselves with the continuation of the species. He said that the first thing that would happen under circumstances like that would be human beings would go mad and break the system, smash it, just so that something unexpected and crazy could happen because human beings don't want utopian comfort and certainty. They want adventure and uncertainty and so that the very notion of a utopia was anti-human because we are not built for static utopia. We're built for a dynamic situation where there's demands placed on us and where there's the optimal amount of uncertainty. Well we know what happened in the 20th century as a consequence of the widespread promulgation of utopian schemes and what happened was mayhem on a scale that had never been matched in the entire history of humanity.

"Maybe what is most evident in the European Economic Community, to bring all of that multiplicity under the umbrella of a single unity is to simultaneously erect a system whereby the top is so far from the bottom that the bottom has no connection to the top. Your social systems have to be large enough so they protect but small enough so that you have a place in them. It seems to me that's what has happened, in places like the EEC, is that the distance between the typical citizen and the bureaucracy that runs the entire structure has got so great that it's an element of destabilization in and of itself and so people revert back to nationalistic identities because it is something they can relate to. There's a history there and a shared genuine identity, an identity of language and tradition. It's not an abstract artificial imposition from the top."

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 6:15 am

In post #59 you took the formation of the EU and the UN, Agenda 21, driverless cars, fuel taxes and walls in California (the dots) and drew a picture of a dystopian future in which our evil leaders (presumably, from your previous posts, you're thinking of Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Merkels and so on) create a global tyranny in which all private property and freedom of movement is banned (and they perhaps steal our precious bodily fluids?). That's what I mean by drawing imaginative pictures.

It's a phenomenon that seems to occur a lot. It's happened a lot on these forums. It seems to me to be caused, in part, by the huge amount of disconnected information (a lot of dots) available on the internet and the large number of people who are willing to join them for you so that you can cite those people as evidence.

As I said in a previous post, my past experience is that trying to argue about things like this usually involves a lot of ultimately pointless asking for internet based sources and then digging. I haven't got the time to do it yet again. If you want to believe that we're all just about to be enslaved like this then feel free to find me when it happens and say "I told you so".

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:20 am to add the following --

If you want to talk about this stuff with like-minded people, I can recommend a recently-departed member of this site called "Grunth" for one. He was fond of very similar themes - the establishment is attacking Trump to protect their evil plans; Obama is orchestrating a new civil war in the US from Richard Branson's island. etc.

I think there are others too.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 6:56 am

Steve3007 wrote:In post #59 you took the formation of the EU and the UN, Agenda 21, driverless cars, fuel taxes and walls in California (the dots) and drew a picture of a dystopian future in which our evil leaders (presumably, from your previous posts, you're thinking of Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Merkels and so on) create a global tyranny in which all private property and freedom of movement is banned (and they perhaps steal our precious bodily fluids?). That's what I mean by drawing imaginative pictures.

It's a phenomenon that seems to occur a lot. It's happened a lot on these forums. It seems to me to be caused, in part, by the huge amount of disconnected information (a lot of dots) available on the internet and the large number of people who are willing to join them for you so that you can cite those people as evidence.

As I said in a previous post, my past experience is that trying to argue about things like this usually involves a lot of ultimately pointless asking for internet based sources and then digging. I haven't got the time to do it yet again. If you want to believe that we're all just about to be enslaved like this then feel free to find me when it happens and say "I told you so".

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:20 am to add the following --

If you want to talk about this stuff with like-minded people, I can recommend a recently-departed member of this site called "Grunth" for one. He was fond of very similar themes - the establishment is attacking Trump to protect their evil plans; Obama is orchestrating a new civil war in the US from Richard Branson's island. etc.

I think there are others too.
I find you dishonest. Here are examples of your dishonesty. Each of these are in your responses to me within this topic and refer to nothing I have said.

"Apart from meaning that we're all victims of a global conspiracy to enslave or kill us involving most of the rich and powerful people in the world who all play golf together while hatching their dastardly plots."

"I guess this is the point where we're all supposed to start trawling the internet for our various competing theories as to which global figure are in cahoots with which sinister organisations to kill/drink the blood of which children in which parts of the world. And somebody pipes up with all the evidence that Elvis isn't really dead."

"create a global tyranny in which all private property and freedom of movement is banned (and they perhaps steal our precious bodily fluids?)"

And then you ironically sum it up with this:

"That's what I mean by drawing imaginative pictures."

All above examples are a product of your very own imagination which you then dishonestly attempt to attribute to myself.

Childish.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 7:01 am

Are you saying that you didn't suggest, in post #59, that there is a plot to take away our private property and freedom of movement?

OK. Perhaps I misunderstood you. One of the problems with the way these types of discussions usually go is the "and another thing, and another thing..." phenomenon. Too much to deal with.

So let's go back to just one of the things you seem to have said and see if I can establish precisely what you're trying to say on that one subject without just dropping it and moving on to the next dot. In post #59 you seemed to suggest that the development of driverless cars is one part of a wider plan/conspiracy to globally remove people's rights to own private property and move freely.

Is that what you meant to say, or have I misunderstood? Do you believe that this is the reason why driverless cars are being developed? As one piece in a much larger plan for global enslavement?

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:03 pm to add the following --

Here's the relevant part:
An effect would be no private ownership of homes or land and no private ownership of farms and general food production. Government farms. Then there would be total control of movement which getting people out of privately owned vehicles lends toward. Driverless cars would suit this end.

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:18 pm to add the following --

Regarding my dishonest characterisation of your words, here is one of the relevant quotes from your posts:
Obama was very decisive in his taking a back seat and letting heads of agencies, such as the CIA, run things mainly for the benefit of elite co-conspirators (Clintons, Bushs, Rosthchilds, Soros, various heads of Wall st banks, Saudi Kings, owner of Amazon/WaPo with his CIA contracts, billionaire Mexican owner of New York Times, Elon Musk, although he is more like a welfare state beneficiary, etc) as he read the script and the autocue. Apparently Obama has been a CIA operative since they employed him in 1980...
I think it's reasonable to assume from this that you believe that there is an extremely extensive conspiracy of multiple powerful people across the world, yes? But to do what? Well, your subsequent post does seem to me to suggest the aim is the removal of private property and freedom of movement. Don't you think it's reasonable to characterise that as slavery?

So when I said this:
Apart from meaning that we're all victims of a global conspiracy to enslave or kill us involving most of the rich and powerful people in the world who all play golf together while hatching their dastardly plots.
I'll admit that the golf was an embellishment. But surely you'll agree that a global conspiracy of powerful people to enslave us is pretty much what you're suggesting, isn't it?

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 12:30 pm to add the following --

For completeness: One more thing apart from the golf. I used the word "dastardly" which I freely admit you didn't use yourself.

But if, as you say, Obama, the Clintons, the Bushs, the Rosthchilds, Soros, various heads of Wall St banks, Saudi Kings, owner of Amazon/WaPo with his CIA contracts, billionaire Mexican owner of New York Times, Elon Musk and more are all part of a well oiled conspiracy against us, and have been since at least 1980, I'd definitely call that pretty dastardly. Wouldn't you?

---

Footnote: I realise that you didn't use the term "well oiled". I freely admit that is another embellishment.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 7:42 am

Wildlands Project updated 9/1/2016

Many of the areas shown on The Wildland Project maps in RED, as off limits to human use, already have significantly reduced public access and no management or resource harvesting through: Wilderness, Critical Habitat and Roadless Areas. YELLOW Areas are areas of Highly regulated Use where hiking may be allowed, but no homes. Only GREEN areas will allow housing.

Are any of the areas that you currently enjoy to recreate shown as RED, or off limits to human activity, on the Wildland map?

Is your home in a YELLOW Area, where housing will ultimately be prohibited through increased taxation and impossible regulations such as updating your home to current building code standards or being within a few miles of a fire/police station? Could your local rural fire or police station be closed due to lack of funding making all homes in your area nonconforming and uninsurable?

The community of Lake Isabella and the entire Kern River Valley are shown as YELLOW or RED which means you will not be allowed to live there.

. In 1992 The Wildlands project was Mandated by the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Wildlands Project, UN & US Man & Biosphere Program & NAFTA Border Agenda 21.

. The Agenda 21 United Nations document pledging to evaluate progress made in implementing the plan, was signed by President George Bush Senior in 1992.

. The President's Council on Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) was created by President Clinton in 1993, creating a method to implement The Wildlands project through Specific Plans in communities across the nation.

. In Kern County California alone, there are currently 400 Specific Plans being created

. Federal Landscape Wide Planning including private property and Wildlife Corridors which are shown in RED on the maps, are being proposed under the National Forest Planning Rule revision right now and also in the recently announced President's Great America Outdoors Initiative.

http://stewardsofthesequoia.org/Wildlands_Project.html

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 7:53 am to add the following --

The Fourth Amendment to The Bill of Rights protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, yet lobbyists are hard at work to give the government the power to walk on to private property and demand that residents prove that they are in compliance with laws that many legal experts say are unconstitutional and ridiculous to begin with.

Though most don’t realize it, very few states even allow property to be owned in allodial title anymore. Texas and Nevada are among the holdouts, and the few that do posses an allodial title there are among the last true land owners in the world.

In Florida, tenants may own an interest or estate in land, subject to property taxes, zoning bureaucracies, and more. If an owner of what Florida statutes call “real property” or “real estate” can’t afford the taxes, the land can be sold to pay them.

Two or more individuals who “own” their property in Florida are known as “tenants in common.”

Throughout most of history, land available for true ownership by the common man has been rare, with property rights being reserved mostly for kings and nobles who could then charge the people rent.

America was founded on the principle that individuals have a right to own property, the fruits of their labor. But, at few times since Americans secured the right has it been more endangered than it is today, property rights activists say.Most don’t openly advocate the destruction of private property rights or a return to the systems of the past that kept the bulk of the human population as penniless slaves and serfs. That doesn’t mean it isn’t being discussed behind closed doors.

“Feudalism is coming back in a different guise,” said John McClaughry, a property rights advocate and retired State Senator. “A growing body of legal theorists, allied with activist organizations and congenial political leaders, has been working very hard to replace the long-cherished concept of freehold property and land with the old feudal concept of social property. The essence of that theory is the contention that property and land cannot be owned by anyone.”

The land we live upon and the homes we reside in are much more than lines on a map, said a Marion County property rights activist concerned about Agenda 21.

“Property is the foundation of a free society, and the sacred heritage of any people who would dare lay claim to the right of liberty,” he said.

Even local governments are participating in these violations of property rights, said the activist who asked not to be named, so “let this be your siren warning.” “Environmentalism, with all of its ‘newspeak’ code words, is just the means by which our new feudal lords are selling us on the idea that private property is detrimental to society,” he explained.

The land use management concepts, according to the activist, come from a “pseudo-science” known as “conservation biology.”

“They use masterful public relations techniques,” he explained before going on to cite some examples.

“The Wildlands Project” has a nice sound, but it calls for the elimination of human presence on over 50% of the American landscape and heavily controlled activity on most of the rest. “Smart Growth” calls for dense human settlements subject to increasing controls on how we live and increasing restriction on our mobility.

The most damning evidence against this movement to people who support the right to own property comes right from the pages of its own founding documents. The “Habitat I” report that provided the blueprint for Agenda 21 openly states: “Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

Property owners can only wonder, indispensable for whom?

“Since public property is a collectivist fiction, since the public as a whole can neither use nor dispose of its property, that property will always be taken over by some political elite, by a small clique which will then rule the public – a public of literal, dispossessed proletarians,” wrote Ayn Rand, a famous author renown for her fierce defense of capitalism and property rights.

In California, another state where these plans are relatively advanced, there are already laws on the books which call for the “decommissioning” of roads, homes, and businesses. This would mean the literal abolition of the communities that exist there. Roads, homes, schools, businesses, and churches will be “decommissioned,” all in the name of the environment.

And what of the idea that we must sacrifice private property rights for the benefit of the environment? That argument doesn’t stand up to even the most casual analysis, say defenders of property rights.

China and Russia, two countries that have rejected the notion of private property for generations, are environmental disasters. Seventy percent of China’s rivers are contaminated. In Dzerzhinsk, Russia, a former Cold War-era center for making chemical weapons, the average life expectancy is 42 for men and 47 for women.

With no private entity or stakeholder to protect and value the land and natural resources, the state has had the freedom to do as “it” saw fit. Private property is not only desirable for economic reasons, say virtually all economists, it is the only means by which to ensure that the environment is protected. Polluted land is of no value to its owner, and a polluter is liable for polluting his neighbors land.

“It is important that every American citizen recognize the goal of this plan for what it is; a return to the ideas that ruled humanity throughout the dark ages and the system where men and women toiled on their land only at the permission of the aristocratic ruling elite,” said the knowledgeable activist and property owner from Marion County.

The founders understood the concept of inalienable individual rights, rights that necessitate the ability to own property, rights that are derived from our Creator and are above the reach of government. They wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to secure and protect those rights.

The Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall and Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, are all proud reminders of America’s heritage of freedom. Now, they’re also all considered official U.N. ‘World Heritage Sites.’

“Neither Congress, nor any state legislature, has ever voted to approve any of the 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The management policy for millions of acres covered by these reserves is crafted by international committees of bureaucrats, none of whom is elected,” said Henry Lamb, the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and the chairman of Sovereignty International. “To comply with ‘international obligations,’ the United States conforms its management policy and in some cases its law to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies.”

The U.N.’s “declaration of human rights” states in article 29 that: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 7:57 am to add the following --

SO DID YOU GET THIS POINT? (Only in capitols to bring attention to this particular "plot")

The “Habitat I” report that provided the blueprint for Agenda 21 openly states: “Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 8:29 am

Yes, I get the point of that last post. Your central thesis here is that Agenda 21 via "Habitat I", which underpins it, explicitly express disapproval of the concept of private land ownership. And you provide some evidence for that. If I were to get into this I guess I'd then have to dig around the find the context, look at other viewpoints, get a fuller picture of the implications and so on.

But before doing that, I want to establish how, if at all, this links to your other remarks. The conspiracy that you mentioned earlier involving Obama, Clintons, Bushes, Saudis, Elon Musk etc. In your view, is this land grab orchestrated by these co-conspirators? The mention of successive US presidents who have been involved in all this suggests the answer is yes. Yes?

And to repeat my earlier question: is the development of driverless cars a part of it?

Also: The fact that you mention Elon Musk presumably links it to electric cars and from there to climate change and the now familiar idea that Global Warming is a myth created by Big Government as an excuse to control our lives, yes? Or no?

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 10:03 am

Steve3007 wrote:Yes, I get the point of that last post. Your central thesis here is that Agenda 21 via "Habitat I", which underpins it, explicitly express disapproval of the concept of private land ownership. And you provide some evidence for that. If I were to get into this I guess I'd then have to dig around the find the context, look at other viewpoints, get a fuller picture of the implications and so on.

But before doing that, I want to establish how, if at all, this links to your other remarks. The conspiracy that you mentioned earlier involving Obama, Clintons, Bushes, Saudis, Elon Musk etc. In your view, is this land grab orchestrated by these co-conspirators? The mention of successive US presidents who have been involved in all this suggests the answer is yes. Yes?

And to repeat my earlier question: is the development of driverless cars a part of it?

Also: The fact that you mention Elon Musk presumably links it to electric cars and from there to climate change and the now familiar idea that Global Warming is a myth created by Big Government as an excuse to control our lives, yes? Or no?
Orchestrated? No. Puppets of, in the main.

Driverless cars fit perfectly in to control for limited movement. Economically and ecologically, driverless cars make no sense either. Certainly the idea for driverless cars is non private ownership. They would be well adapted for Agenda 21.

After all, what is good about them? There would be more people on the road (the road to government allowed destinations).

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 10:12 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:

Also: The fact that you mention Elon Musk presumably links it to electric cars and from there to climate change and the now familiar idea that Global Warming is a myth created by Big Government as an excuse to control our lives, yes? Or no?
Elon Musk's business, what makes him a billionaire, is the carbon credit business. He has cars built for those who earn $250,000 using taxes created by carbon credit. Effectively tax payers who will not earn anywhere near $250,000 subsidize those who do.

It is claimed the 'greenhouse effect' is caused by levels of Co2 in the atmosphere. It is admitted universally that Co2 is 400th of 1% of the atmosphere. Think about that amount.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 10:18 am

Me:
The conspiracy that you mentioned earlier involving Obama, Clintons, Bushes, Saudis, Elon Musk etc. In your view, is this land grab orchestrated by these co-conspirators?
Razblo:
Orchestrated? No. Puppets of, in the main.
The co-conspirators are puppets of the land grab? Puppets of the UN? What do you mean? Who's a puppet of whom?
Driverless cars fit perfectly in to control for limited movement.
So, to ask the question again, in your view, are driverless cars being developed as a deliberate part of the plan to seize our private property and rights to movement by the co-conspirators/puppets?

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 3:26 pm to add the following --
It is claimed the 'greenhouse effect' is caused by levels of Co2 in the atmosphere. It is admitted universally that Co2 is 400th of 1% of the atmosphere. Think about that amount.
Can I take it from this that you are indeed a subscriber to the view that human-made climate change is a hoax created by Big Government in order to have an excuse to exert control of the little guy?

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million by volume. As you've suggested, that's less than 0.1%. You seem to be arguing that this means it can't possibly have any significant effect. What is the basis of that argument? Is it this: "less than 0.1% sounds like a really small number." Or is there any more to it?

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 10:45 am

Steve3007 wrote:Me:
The conspiracy that you mentioned earlier involving Obama, Clintons, Bushes, Saudis, Elon Musk etc. In your view, is this land grab orchestrated by these co-conspirators?
Razblo:
Orchestrated? No. Puppets of, in the main.
The co-conspirators are puppets of the land grab? Puppets of the UN? What do you mean? Who's a puppet of whom?
The puppets/co-conspirators of/with your previously stated perception, that being "international law" and "enforceable global law''. Such definitions had already been perceived by yourself.
Steve3007 wrote:
Driverless cars fit perfectly in to control for limited movement.
So, to ask the question again, in your view, are driverless cars being developed as a deliberate part of the plan to seize our private property and rights to movement by the co-conspirators/puppets?
Can you answer these questions?

1.Tell me what other plan are they useful for?

2. How can they not be incredibly efficient for control of movement?

3. Given that they have been officially recognized as a hired vehicle and not for private ownership, as the replacement of privately owned cars how can they not indicate an end to cars as "private property"?

Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » July 31st, 2017, 10:55 am

Climate change is being caused by human activity. All other factors that would have affected the climate over the past several decades would have cooled the planet, so 100% of the change is due to human activity. We have direct scientific lab results showing greenhouse gases absorbing radiation. We know the increase in CO2 is due to humans, because of the isotopes involved. We have direct satellite evidence showing radiation being absorbed in exactly the range we would expect from the greenhouse gases. We have most of the temperature change occurring in the oceans, so when land-temperatures do not rise, we find the ocean-rise in temperature accelerates, which shows a clear relationship between increasing CO2 and temperature rise.

The last time CO2 was at its present level, oceans were a lot higher than they are today.

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 10:58 am to add the following --

Self-driving cars are privately owned, and shall be simply another form of private property. Also, no one will force people to buy them. This is simply another technological innovation that we have experienced for thousands of years now, so it's crazy to claim that self-driving cars are being developed to deny people property rights or freedom. In fact, self-driving cars will allow far greater freedom for many disabled people, including the blind, as well as the elderly, and very young, as they will be able to get around in private cars without needing to drive them.

-- Updated July 31st, 2017, 11:02 am to add the following --

Free-trade makes us better off, not worse off. By the way, to limit imports is to limit exports. This is because other countries can only pay for our exports by selling us imports and earning US dollars. Workers have an average, higher pay rate in export businesses than they do in import businesses, so by reducing trade, one would actually reduce the average income of American workers. Trump simply does not understand basic economics. He doesn't even know that a trade deficit is based to domestic saving rates, and not to currency manipulation by foreign governments.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Razblo » July 31st, 2017, 11:04 am

Steve3007 wrote:

Can I take it from this that you are indeed a subscriber to the view that human-made climate change is a hoax created by Big Government in order to have an excuse to exert control of the little guy?

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million by volume. As you've suggested, that's less than 0.1%. You seem to be arguing that this means it can't possibly have any significant effect. What is the basis of that argument? Is it this: "less than 0.1% sounds like a really small number." Or is there any more to it?
It is actually a very big number because of the big attention it deserves. The number gives big attention to the fact that the levels of C02 is insignificant in effect with regard to the 3% temperature rise over the last 140 years. A steady rise with no significant spike over a time period that has seen the world population go from 150 million to 7 billion.

Yes, man made global warming is a myth. A widely believed myth. It has become a religion. What is religion really really good for? Control.

Steve3007
Posts: 5146
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Steve3007 » July 31st, 2017, 11:06 am

Razblo:
The puppets/co-conspirators of/with your previously stated perception, that being "international law" and "enforceable global law''. Such definitions had already been perceived by yourself.
I'm having trouble understanding the grammar of this one. Are you saying that "international law" is a puppet? As I understand that word in this context, a "puppet" normally refers to a person or people. Not a concept.

Razblo:
(Re driverless cars)
1.Tell me what other plan are they useful for?
I guess reading a book or playing with the kids while driving.
2. How can they not be incredibly efficient for control of movement?
That's supposedly another one of the advantages. Or so I've read.

One of the supposed advantages of a country having a large fleet of driverless cars is the improvements to traffic flow. The fact that control of the cars would be centralised means that they could, for example, drive very close together, like the carriages of a train, without the danger of collisions.

At least, that's the reason they give (Google ane the like). But perhaps the real reason for centralising the control of all these cars would be so that the conspirators could, at a moment of their choosing, take control of them and do with them as they please. Stop them all, or drive them off a cliff or something. Take away our rights to travel where we see fit. Right?

One thing that strikes me about this though: Why? These co-conspirators get fat by owning and controlling the businesses we work for, right? We're they're cash cows, right? So why would they want us to do anything different from what we're already doing? If they take control of our driverless cars and stop us from getting where we want to go, the chances are they'll just stop us from getting to work. That's not going to help them is it?

If those fat cats are already doing very well by exploiting the labour of us workers, why not (from their point of view) just carry on with things as they are? Why make us all miserable and therefore less productive by spoiling our ability to walk and drive where we choose? If I were them, I'd leave things as they are and keep on raking in the cash. Wouldn't you?

If I were them, I'd say something like this: "Ha! Let the poor fools have their country walks and their pathetic little cars! Let them have their bread and circuses! And I'll keep raking in the proceeds of their labour!"

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:11 pm to add the following --
The number gives big attention to the fact that the levels of C02 is insignificant in effect with regard to the 3% temperature rise over the last 140 years. A steady rise with no significant spike over a time period that has seen the world population go from 150 million to 7 billion.
OK, so your argument is more than just "0.1% is a really small number". It's about graphs of temperature changes, and the infra-red absorption characteristics of carbon-dioxide and all that stuff, eh? Fair enough. I guess if we were going to pursue this we'd have to start throwing bit of the internet at each other and getting all scientific. Maybe later.

Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Trump's Demand for Loyalty

Post by Fan of Science » July 31st, 2017, 11:12 am

Climate change is most definitely not a myth. Temperature increases are associated with the increase in greenhouse gases, which is why the inner atmosphere is heating up, and not the outer one, which would be more consistent with the Sun causing the temperature rise. The evidence for climate change is well-documented, which is exactly why you have offered nothing rational to refute the science. Science-deniers and conspiracy theorists are dangerous. We cannot survive based on idiocy.

Post Reply