The Green Blackout

Started by AP, February 02, 2012, 01:53:28 am

Previous topic - Next topic

AP


cyphyr

www.richardfraser.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 3900X @3.79Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 6:20)
i7 5930K @3.5Ghz, 32Gb (TG4 benchmark 13.44)


JimB

Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

rcallicotte

@Jim (off topic) - checked your link; like your work.   ;D
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

TheBadger

March 20, 2012, 09:51:13 am #5 Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 11:56:21 pm by TheBadger
I just watched the whole thing including the question and answer part. I think his take on the environmental "green movement" as a spiritual movement or new religion is spot on! Al Gores use of a capital "N" in nature, the way the "g" in God is used is very telling in and of its self. As someone ones said, "Those who control the language control the culture".
I dont believe for one moment that the green movement gives a shit at all about human life. I do believe that if the the green movement were to gain the control over the global economic and environmental policies that they seek, the result would be catastrophic to human life around the world.

The only way the green movement will get what it wants is with a massive population reduction. That means you and me. Well, perhaps not you. But I'm poor, so it definitely means me.

*Nature*
It has been eaten.

JimB

@ Calico, thanks very much.

Quote from: TheBadger on March 20, 2012, 09:51:13 am
The only way the green movement will get what it wants is with a massive population reduction. That means you and me. Well, perhaps not you. But I'm poor, so it definitely means me.


Got any evidence for this?
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

rcallicotte

When I was child (many moons ago), anti-littering was actually enforced by policemen.  You didn't see trashy highways or trash bags along the way where someone picked up someone else's trash, because fines were heavy and enforced.  Pollution was attacked in companies.  Laws were changed and enforced.  Factories were even shut down.

Since then, after about 1979 or so, oil companies worldwide have controlled the economy and prevented replacement of oil as the mode of energy for multiple items including cars and factories.  Due to this control, the electric car way back then was stifled.  It has come to the forefront lately, but not by much.  Still, we see conservative wealthy people vying for who is going to get theirs in the pile-on of who can create a real "Hunger Games" scenario.

The enemy isn't someone who cares about our environment - plain and simple. 
So this is Disney World.  Can we live here?

TheBadger

Yes

"John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies"

"...Obama's science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a "planetary regime" that would use a "global police force" to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children..."

The book is Ecoscience a college text from 1977

After being questioned by reporters on his statement, John Holdern said, we should not take seriously something he said when he was younger. The ideas for population reduction, that Holder promoted are in use in China now and other places where the government has the power to make these policies law.

I do agree that we have problems with pollution and other issues, I do not believe that the green movement has any viable solutions, that will not cause greater human suffering. I like that they are out there keeping these issues on top, but I don't trust them to protect my life.
It has been eaten.

JimB

You have a single scenario in a 1000 page book from 35 years ago, and even then only under certain conditions? Are you serious?

Hannity falsely claims science adviser Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion" http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028
"Description misrepresented as endorsement": Bludgeoning Obama's science advisor with a 1977 textbook http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php

QuoteThe sad thing here is that Carpenter's story, like the extremist blog post that appears to be her only source (which I'll discuss later), doesn't recognize the distinction between talking about something and endorsing something. That distinction is absolutely central to science: science is all about discussing, testing, and evaluating many possibilities - hypotheses - until the evidence endorses one hypothesis over the others.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

March 20, 2012, 12:01:11 pm #10 Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 12:09:07 pm by TheBadger
Quote from: JimB on March 20, 2012, 11:47:02 am
You have a single scenario in a 1000 page book from 35 years ago, and even then only under certain conditions? Are you serious?

Hannity falsely claims science adviser Holdren "advocated compulsory abortion" http://mediamatters.org/research/200909090028
"Description misrepresented as endorsement": Bludgeoning Obama's science advisor with a 1977 textbook http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2009/07/description_misrepresented_as.php

QuoteThe sad thing here is that Carpenter's story, like the extremist blog post that appears to be her only source (which I'll discuss later), doesn't recognize the distinction between talking about something and endorsing something. That distinction is absolutely central to science: science is all about discussing, testing, and evaluating many possibilities - hypotheses - until the evidence endorses one hypothesis over the others.



I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.
I did not know Hannity talked on this subject. I do think its funny if you think media matters is some how different than Hannity, they are two sides to the same crazy coin.

My main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places. And, that there are people even in western governments who would support these crimes. Even if they are obscure people who write obscure books.

Would you vote for a man, who even if it was 30 years ago, said, "All jews should be killed, perhaps."? Or, " Maybe we should kill people?.. Just asking?" Whats the difference? What crazy fucked up world do you live in, where its OK for leaders to consider in a scientific method, the viability of genocide as a solution to any problem?

Just so you know, I don't trust oil companies either. I don't trust anyone to have power over me or my life. But the subject of this thread was very specific, so thats what I was commenting on.
It has been eaten.

JimB

Quote from: TheBadger on March 20, 2012, 12:01:11 pm
I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.


Please explain how Holdren is the leader of the environmental movement.

QuoteMy main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places.


Or maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem? Not exactly a big secret. But I see no evidence for China's Central Committee jumping up after reading Holdren's book in the Seventies and shouting "Eureka!"

QuoteWould you vote for a man, who even if it was 30 years ago, said, "All jews should be killed, perhaps."?


No. Quite the opposite. But that has nothing to do with environmentalism or Holdren.

Quote" Maybe we should kill people?.. Just asking?" Whats the difference? What crazy fucked up world do you live in, where its OK for leaders to consider in a scientific method, the viability of genocide as a solution to any problem?


It's called an hypothetical situation, which most people over the age of twelve understand to be purely hypothetical. A bit like an hypothetical nuclear war, but in your world it would appear that those hypothetically discussing the subject are actually after the launch codes and all for pressing the button.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

QuoteQuote from: TheBadger on Today at 04:01:11 PM
I was pointing out that there are people in the green movement, who are also in my government, who think like tyrant dictators.

Please explain how Holdren is the leader of the environmental movement.


Holdren advises the President of the United Sates on matters of science and technology, including science and technology as it relates to environmental issues, a central concern of the obama administration. He has the presidents ear and he is an environmentalist. Because of his elite roll in the government he is an elite leader of the green movement. It is not the activists in the green movement that worry me, it is the pollicy makers.

QuoteMy main point was that, in the interest of environmentalism via population control, horrible crimes are being committed today in china and other places.

Or maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem? Not exactly a big secret. But I see no evidence for China's Central Committee jumping up after reading Holdren's book in the Seventies and shouting "Eureka!"


I did not mean to suggest a correlation, only a similarity. "maybe China just has a serious overpopulation problem?", Yeah, and maybe we should just kill people to solve the problem. Thats my point.

QuoteIt's called an hypothetical situation, which most people over the age of twelve understand to be purely hypothetical. A bit like an hypothetical nuclear war, but in your world it would appear that those hypothetically discussing the subject are actually after the launch codes and all for pressing the button.

If when my Son comes home at 12, and proposes a hypothetical situation, where for some reason he needs to kill people as a solution to a problem, I will seek the help of psychiatrist. Nucular war is not hypothetical, it is a real danger. Our preparations for nuclear conflict are not hypothetical, they are real and stand ready. God forbid.

I restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem. Holdren only recanted after being pressed too, after the story broke possibly by Hannity or some one else on the right. I do not trust the right any more than the left by the way.
It has been eaten.

JimB

QuoteI restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem.


That's the Pentagon sacked, then. They regularly look at all hypothetical scenarios and plan for them, just in case. You can sack the CDC while you're at it, too.
Some bits and bobs
The Galileo Fallacy, 'Argumentum ad Galileus':
"They laughed at Galileo. They're laughing at me. Therefore I am the next Galileo."

Nope. Galileo was right for the simpler reason that he was right.

TheBadger

Quote from: JimB on March 20, 2012, 06:14:06 pm
QuoteI restate: I do not want people making policy who think like the people you are defending, who imagine as an intellectual exercise, how murder and tyranny may solve a problem.


That's the Pentagon sacked, then. They regularly look at all hypothetical scenarios and plan for them, just in case. You can sack the CDC while you're at it, too.


I can not argue against your assertion that there are people in those departments who's thinking is extreme and horrific. You are almost certainly right. 
However, those people in the departments you mention do not have neo-pegan religions forming around them the way the green movement does. Also, those department and industries were not the point of this thread.

I am sorry that my sharing my feelings on this subject brought you to anger. I really don't understand why you would be upset by what I said. I have no power over you, or any power over the things you believe in. Yet the movements you seem to support and their public faces actively seek the power necessary to directly effect my life and my liberty, even my very ability to work and prosper.

It has been eaten.