Natalia wrote:
> > The point is that you have to distinguish between the object and the
> > liquid in it. The object is alive/propelling, but not the liquid --
> > although the liquid is a necessary prerequisite (but not a sufficient one!)
> > for life/propulsion.
>
> NK---Yes, Chris, I get that. What I'm trying to convey is that without
> vitality of healthy water, life will cease, just as without healthy air,
> and vital minerals.
No, that should read:
Without dead H2O and O2 and minerals, our life will cease.
> All parts to our biosphere work in cooperation to
> create and support life. They are integral and interdependent. A vital
> hydrosphere is essential in its functions as part of Earth's regulator
> for balance. From the perspective of cooperation, rather than from that
> of competition, water serves as the circulatory system, cleansing and
> flushing, for the homeostasis of the planet.
Now that's a different claim. But the original statement from Perry was:
>>>> "The mainstream world believes that water is dead -- yet
>>>> we're 70 percent water."
This says nothing about biosphere. It suggests that water is not dead because
we as living organisms contain 70% water. That's a logical fallacy, period.
In your logic above, mud and rocks are also alive (as functional elements
that make our biosphere work).
> > Try giving water to a dead person, and get back to me if that gives life
> > back to the person.
>
> NK---Cute. Electricity often works. Perhaps the two together could
> someday do a better job!
You can see what a great job the two together do, by throwing your
running hair-dryer into the water while taking a bath.
(Caution: Superstition can be lethal! Not only for "witches"...)
> NK---What are you going to say about all this when /science/ proves that
> everything we see or detect has no life until it is actually observed?
Such nonsense won't happen. Of course we are alive, even while we are
not being observed.
> What will you say to the possibility that all physicality is the
> projection of mind?
Mind requires life.
> Puppets, so to speak, thereby
> leveling the field, and having that rock be intrinsically no different
> from the athlete.
If you declare "Gaia" to be a living organism, where does that put humanity,
which "is destroying Gaia"? Humans are a part of this "organism", so you
can only declare humanity as a cancer of "Gaia". Do you realize that such
a dogma leads to genocide? Exactly "the coming cull" advocated by the
billionaires (who of course exempt themselves from belonging to that cancer,
although they're the biggest polluters / responsibles for pollution!).
And that corner happens to be where the "Gaia" concept comes from.
>> Actually, with your remark on stale water, you are contradicting yourself:
>> If there's life in the water (bacteria, such as Legionella), then it's
>> UNhealthy!
>
> NK---Actually, in the beginning, there was only ocean water and
> anaerobic bacteria, whose cooperative converted nitrates to nitrogen
> gas, which led to an atmosphere which led to other life.
I was talking about the present. H2O without life (bacteria) in it is
healthy, but H2O with life (bacteria) in it is UNhealthy.
>> No, that's a different question ("Gaia" is the composite of all kinds of
>> materials, as opposed to the single-molecule H2O). But you are right that
>> "Gaia" is another esoterical concept invented by Predators...
>
> Not at all different. Just that science is telling you its version of
> reality, and you believe it out of fear. Like religious people believe
> they must believe in God or else he'll punish you.
Your projection is outright laughable, and your superstition is NOT helping
to advance environmentalism, because it requires a belief in "Gaia" -- a
concept that doesn't make sense. If this planet was one organism with a
mind, and humans are destroying it, then "Gaia" could simply cough (e.g.
global earthquakes of magnitude 12 or so), and voilà -- all humans would
be gone, and "Gaia" could recover.
> Gaia theory's return
> from three hundred years ago to when Lovelock redefined the function of
> biosphere as acting like a single system, had nothing to do with predation.
See above (billionaires).
> > Overall, esoterical nonsense brings UNhappiness to society. Remember
> > the Middle Ages?
>
> NK---Nonsense in any form often brings unhappiness, unless it's comedy.
Then why do you peddle the "Gaia" nonsense? As comedy?
> I would rather we look to other avenues, with all the expected
> experimentation and pitfalls, than to accept unquestioningly the current
> system of thought that pervades society.
Straw-man. If you ever read my postings, you'd know that I do anything but
"accept unquestioningly the current system of thought that pervades society".
But that doesn't mean that I swallow esoterical nonsense.
Again, you're using that shallow Tweedledum/Tweedledee trick to get me to
accept unquestioningly YOUR system of thought. Won't work.
> In case you haven't noticed,
> things are a little stagnant. The science of medicine, the science of
> economics, the science of war, advertising, relationships, etc.
Funny that you're listing the main Predator domains in "science".
Mainstream medicine today is strongly corrupted by Predators, and
it can be doubted that economics is a science at all (note that
Alfred Nobel didn't issue a Nobel Prize in economics because he
had such a bad opinion of economists -- a fake prize in economics
was later added by the banksters). And war is the arch domain of
Predators, certainly not a science. Ditto for advertising etc.
You may ask, how can science be corrupted? Well, it isn't corrupted
BY science but by power (money). You can counter this corruption only
with science (debunking the frauds) -- not with superstition! By
advocating superstition, you are helping the Predators.
> Even the
> greatest scientific minds in recorded history belonged to esoteric
> circles, for which they were often persecuted. Today, you consider their
> work to be scientific laws.
No. Science progresses by taking up new findings, not superstition.
It was superstition (the church) who persecuted the scientist Galileo,
not the other way around.
>> Then why should water in Japan be able to read Japanese? Did this water
>> attend different schools than the Alpine water?
>
> NK---It responds to intention, is the idea.
...
> NK---The writing was for the record of the human observer.
You still didn't explain _how_ the water is supposed to _perceive_ the
intention. By telepathy?
> NK---Yes, science verifies, but most often, in the case of medicine, has
> not, and in the cases of need to mine or need to drill, has not either.
If science doesn't verify in the case of medicine, it is because Predators
see to it that there are no funds (grants) to verify it. Clearly not an
argument against science, but for it!
> Nor does science do well in the ability to fix things. Engineering, more
> likely.
You're twisting my words. I wrote "science is about knowing what you're
doing, which is necessary to fix things."
Engineering uses science as the basis of working.
Do you want engineers to work based on superstition?
> NK---Uh, I don't know what numbers you're considering, but Pharma
> predators have it hands down over snake oil salesmen.
Snake oil salesmen are 100% fraud. Medical science is only fraud to
the extent that money/power can corrupt science. But this could be
corrected with science, not with superstition. Btw, didn't you notice
that mainstream doctors often accept homeopathy, and some are even
practicing it, knowing full well that it helps their chemical business
(because it is not effective in healing) -- and the margins are higher!
And the wrong approach is the same! (tinkering with symptoms instead
of fixing the root causes of illness)
In fact, the lecture of the guy with the hydrogen bomb was actually
held in the building of a mandatory "health" insurance, and paid by
our mandatory "protection money" fees!
> No, I wasn't
> saying there's a distinction, just that predation enters into every
> aspect of life, and that you don't respond so passionately or
> pugnaciously to call out Pharma's overwhelming abuses
Wrong. I write against Predators in general. Of course that includes
Pharma's Predators.
> Ohh!! Experimental science is
> = Pseudo-science, and it's is so sinful! They'll destroy everything!
> Well, that's just what so-called real science is doing. But, bitch about
> the little guy if you need to feel in control...
Homeopathy is NOT "experimental science". It hasn't even progressed in
200 years. It's superstition that has not even acknowledged the
Avogadro constant!
And that "little guy" was fooling little old ill ladies with "advice"
that was outright harmful, so your pity with the guy is inappropriate.
> NK---OK, science would stop you right here. I cannot speak to
> homeopathy, beyond the feedback of how it seems to work for many, and
> that is no different from allopathic results.
Wrong.
> Naturopathy is not
> considered scientifically verifiable until science performs several
> double blind studies on any given treatment or remedy or food.
Of course "naturopathy" is scientifically verifiable (as it works with
active ingredients, instead of water often diluted beyond Avogradro) --
and has been verified, in the very rare cases that funds are available
for this kind of research (unwanted by Pharma).
> Is it
> food that you're hoping your medical plan will cover to detoxify your
> toxic system? Has that food been proven scientifically to clear the
> specific toxin which concerns you?
Detoxification is only one component. The main component is to avoid
further intoxication and to mend the (side) effects of toxins.
Of course, choice of foods is crucial, but supplements are necessary.
Both is backed by science.
>> The old Tweedledee-Tweedledum rhetoric that's so typical of Dems. The fact
>> that Big Pharma is bad doesn't mean that we have to trust voodoo "medicine".
>> The fact that Republicans are bad doesn't mean that Obama(care) is good.
>> Predators are bad on both "sides"!
>
> NK---No one here is asking you to trust it. This whole tirade of yours
> is based on the misconception that I asked you to believe something,
At least implicitly, you asked me to believe in "Gaia" and the notion that
water is alive and even has a mind (NB at the level of a single H2O molecule!).
> something that would hurt you to the core. That's up to you if you want
> to play victim.
Where did I say that? Even the guy with the hydrogen bomb didn't hurt me
personally, just the old ladies who had never attended highschool (the
guy hadn't either!). But as you should have figured out long ago on this
list, I'm not a person who thinks egoistically. So I am concerned that
the superstition harms others, and harms the environment. I am concerned
about the victims even if I am not a victim personally. Have you not
learned from pastor Niemöller?
> But, just like with Omega 3's--they work for /you/, may
> be even in the way you expect. Perhaps it's just in your head because
> you've bought the advertising. You know, like the countless high blood
> pressure medicine rip-offs! All previously scientifically tested, then
> scientifically re-tested to yield poorer results than placebos and
> diuretics. Science said Vit E had to be 400 IUs, then science said, no,
> 100 IUs is safer.
What a nonsense. It is absolutely clear that the correct form of omega3
is beneficial, even in the most wide-spread "civilization" illnesses, and
that most people are deficient in omega3 (which is only logical if you
look at what they eat).
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
