Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

> On Jan 28, 2017, at 11:31 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me: 
>>>   That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You
>>>   are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. 
>>> 
>>> 
 that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 
>>> 
>>>   I never said that.
>>> 
> 
> John:
>> Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young
>> girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly
>> disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not
>> getting into it again, please just leave it alone.
>> 
>>>   So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that
>>>   comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't
>>>   make me a bible thumper. 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT
>> believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with
>> Trump and his cronies.
> 
> 
>OK. Allegedly, the trump mafia, which is a subset of
>the us gov't mafia, doesn't believe in global warming. I say
>'allegedly' because I would be hardly surprised if they
>flip-floped. But fine, for the time being they are on the
>payroll of the oil mafia (oops a 'conspiracy theory')
> 
>However, other factions of the us gov't do believe in 'climate
>change'. So my claim "you get your  propaganda from the
>gov't" is still valid (more accurately, the source is a faction
>within the gov't) - If I'm in line with the repuglicans, then
>you are in line with the democrats. 
>But OK, I see how you can turn my argument around and say that
>I'm a shill for shell and exxon (and aramco I guess). Even if
>you do that, my general point still stands. The 'climate
>change' faction IS a faction. They are not honest and
>'objective' 'scientists'. They are playing a political game.
>And 'science' has always been manipulated by political
>interests. Something you seem to completely ignore.
> 
> 

I disagree, for the most part, on this particular issue. The factions seem to 
me to be a tiny percentage of scientists willing to stand with the "oil mafia", 
vs the vast majority who seem to me to be standing with the science. Even if 
the democrats at least profess belief in this existential issue, what did they 
ever really do about it? Anything of consequence? I don't think the factions 
break down like you imagine, and I don't give the democrats much credit simply 
for refusing to deny the issue.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been
>> made, 
> 
>   Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the
> 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are
> not mistakes. 
 
 There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. 
>>> 
>>>   Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like
>>>   you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of
>>>   thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor
>>>   'mistaken' altruists or something.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted
>> as science by anyone, anywhere? 
> 
> 
>So you actucally don't have a clue about what 'scientists'
>used to say? Here's ONE fucking datapoint for you. 
> 
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_LGBT_rights
> 
>"The World Health Organisation declassifies homosexuality as a
>mental illness in the latest edition of its list of diseases
>and health problems, the ICD-10." 
> 
>Now, was that 1992 BEFORE FUCKING CHRIST or after? I'm not
>goind to do more of your homework. You gaagle the rest. 
> 

Ok, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Obviously this is a disgusting blemish on 
the history of "scientific inquiry" ;) ... I don't put much stock in psychology 
personally, despite what you may think.


> 
>> 
>> 
 Early
 experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,
>>> 
>>>   AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with
>>>   'science', fake or legitimate? 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you
>> love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is
>> there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and
>> rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved.
> 
> 
>Keep up with your bullshit. You are doing exactly what I say
>you are doing. You are making excuses for people who are
>corrupt to the bone. The 'mistakes' (your word) or now 'fuck
>ups' are not 'mistakes'. 
> 

Yes, many of them were criminal acts, no doubt, with financial pressure pushing 
legit science aside and causing atrocities. I won't bother with another list, 
you can gaagle it yourself ;) In any case, they were still mistakes.

>'Science' when done by people is not guaranteed at all to
>really be science. It obviously can be p

Re: Public Dissentiment

[James A. Donald]

On 1/29/2017 3:29 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

I am pretty sure that under the new management, we will no longer hear
that each year was warmer than the last, (by an amount much smaller than
the various sources of error that occur in attempting to measure global
temperatures, which sources of error are "corrected" by ad hoc guessed
corrections) and instead this year, and subsequent years during the
Trump presidency, will be significantly cooler than 2016.

We will also see during the Trump presidency a recovery in total area of
the oceans covered by ice.  I will bet you a six pack of beer that
measured and observed Global Warming stops during the Trump presidency,
both global temperatures and global sea ice.


To be precise, I predict that the lowest area of global sea ice during 
the Trump presidency will always be higher, more sea covered by sea ice, 
than the lowest area of global sea ice during the Obama presidency.



Will this shake your faith in:

1.  Government science?

2.  Global Warming?

Re: Public Dissentiment

[James A. Donald]

On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote:

I'd like to point out here that the National Park Service was the way
the public initially was informed of global climate change when an
un-vetted--by-deniers memo to park managers leaked stating (Paraphrase):
'As the climate continues to get warmer over the years we should prepare
for more summertime activities' a decade or more ago.



I am pretty sure that under the new management, we will no longer hear 
that each year was warmer than the last, (by an amount much smaller than 
the various sources of error that occur in attempting to measure global 
temperatures, which sources of error are "corrected" by ad hoc guessed 
corrections) and instead this year, and subsequent years during the 
Trump presidency, will be significantly cooler than 2016.


We will also see during the Trump presidency a recovery in total area of 
the oceans covered by ice.  I will bet you a six pack of beer that 
measured and observed Global Warming stops during the Trump presidency, 
both global temperatures and global sea ice.


Will this shake your faith in:

1.  Government science?

2.  Global Warming?

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

me: 
> >That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You
> >are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. 
> > 
> > 
> >> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 
> > 
> >I never said that.
> > 

John:
> Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young
> girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly
> disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not
> getting into it again, please just leave it alone.
> 
> >So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that
> >comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't
> >make me a bible thumper. 
> > 
> 
> 
> How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT
> believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with
> Trump and his cronies.


OK. Allegedly, the trump mafia, which is a subset of
the us gov't mafia, doesn't believe in global warming. I say
'allegedly' because I would be hardly surprised if they
flip-floped. But fine, for the time being they are on the
payroll of the oil mafia (oops a 'conspiracy theory')

However, other factions of the us gov't do believe in 'climate
change'. So my claim "you get your  propaganda from the
gov't" is still valid (more accurately, the source is a faction
within the gov't) - If I'm in line with the repuglicans, then
you are in line with the democrats. 

But OK, I see how you can turn my argument around and say that
I'm a shill for shell and exxon (and aramco I guess). Even if
you do that, my general point still stands. The 'climate
change' faction IS a faction. They are not honest and
'objective' 'scientists'. They are playing a political game.
And 'science' has always been manipulated by political
interests. Something you seem to completely ignore.



> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  
>  Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been
>  made, 
> >>> 
> >>>Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the
> >>> 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are
> >>> not mistakes. 
> >> 
> >> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. 
> > 
> >Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like
> >you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of
> >thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor
> >'mistaken' altruists or something.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted
> as science by anyone, anywhere? 


So you actucally don't have a clue about what 'scientists'
used to say? Here's ONE fucking datapoint for you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_LGBT_rights

"The World Health Organisation declassifies homosexuality as a
mental illness in the latest edition of its list of diseases
and health problems, the ICD-10." 

Now, was that 1992 BEFORE FUCKING CHRIST or after? I'm not
goind to do more of your homework. You gaagle the rest. 


> 
> 
> >> Early
> >> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,
> > 
> >AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with
> >'science', fake or legitimate? 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you
> love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is
> there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and
> rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved.


Keep up with your bullshit. You are doing exactly what I say
you are doing. You are making excuses for people who are
corrupt to the bone. The 'mistakes' (your word) or now 'fuck
ups' are not 'mistakes'. 

'Science' when done by people is not guaranteed at all to
really be science. It obviously can be political propaganda. 


> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA
> >> came around, etc, etc. 
> > 
> >Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American
> >Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true
> >statist colors. 
> > 
> 
> Tsk tsk all you want dickhead, it's a fact. All sorts of toxic shit
> was passed off prior to the fda (and after, for that matter). 

So you just contradicted yourself in two senteces? Can't 
you make up your mind? =) Does the american anarchist FDA
'work' or not? 

> My
> anarchist utopia will have some sort of opt-in dope inspection line,
> but I'm happy for you to die of arsenic poisoning in yours.

'Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis
macht, das ein Ding kein Gift ist."


> 
> >By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your
> >Progressive Scientifc Anarc

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/28/2017 03:55 AM, John Newman wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:08 PM, batty wrote:
>
> What another amazing addition to the list :)
>
> I can't figure the attraction for scum like you to "participate" on cpunks. 
> Actually I can't figure the attraction for scum like yourself to get up in 
> the morning.
>
>


Afaict this IS the reason. I wonder how much Torproject (et al) pays
people to disrupt lists that critique their product? I have all sigaint
mail (ie torprojects bffs) shitcanned at the server. There is no
over-weeening reason to use tor-based email for a public list. AND I'm
really disappointed in protonmail's response to my notifying them their
servers are being used for spam traffic. "aff aff".

Rr

Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:08 PM, booty  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 27 2017 14:23:36 -1400
> > "John Newman"  wrote:
> > 
> > asperger's syndrome
> 
> Is not real anymore, I don't think.
> 
> > She couldn't talk
> 
> Get that bitch some weed.
> 
> > Was "curing" gays ever accepted as science by anyone, anywhere? 
> 
> Yeah, here.  Depriving children of saturated fats and cholesterol fucks up 
> their hormone production;
> less testosterone for boys, less estrogen for girls.
> 
> Reverse it.
> 
> There is your "cure".
> 


What another amazing addition to the list :)

I can't figure the attraction for scum like you to "participate" on cpunks. 
Actually I can't figure the attraction for scum like yourself to get up in the 
morning.



> 
> 
> 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:23:36 -0500
> John Newman  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> /snip
> 
>I'll reply to your message later, but there's something I feel
>curious about right now. 
> 
>Do you think that the people who run the US central bank (or
>any other central bank), and all the 'economists' from 'very
>important' universities who take central banks and money
>printing for granted, are 'scientists'? Are so called
>'keynesian' 'economists' 'scientists'? 
> 
> 
> 

No. It's a "field" that can be gamed and manipulated using analytical 
techniques, but fundamentally it would fall more in line as a form of sociology 
or some other study of people. Economic policy is dictated by the barrel of the 
gun, rules and charters and guidelines written out by corporate interests and 
enforced by the various governments in a very transparent attempt at keeping 
the rich man (and nation) rich and the poor man (and nation) poor. I have no 
deep understanding or insights on this subject (nor much interest) but these 
are the thoughts off the top of my head. 


> 
> 
> 
>
> 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:46:05PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500
> John Newman  wrote:
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> > > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> > > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> > > > religious fervor.
> > > 
> > >   Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored
> > > joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
> > >   phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot
> > > the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
> > >   considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.
> > > 
> > >   Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
> > >   but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant.
> > > They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.
> > > 
> > 
> > Whatever, you get my point.
> 
> 
>   No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is
>   that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s).

When I don't have time to read a whole thread, and want a quick summary,
just read one of Juan's posts.

:D

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:23:36 -0500
John Newman  wrote:

> 
> 
> /snip

I'll reply to your message later, but there's something I feel
curious about right now. 

Do you think that the people who run the US central bank (or
any other central bank), and all the 'economists' from 'very
important' universities who take central banks and money
printing for granted, are 'scientists'? Are so called
'keynesian' 'economists' 'scientists'? 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/27/2017 05:22 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
> On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote:
>> Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more
>> reliable compass.
>
> You mean government funded science:


You mean with any currently existent government on Earth "unhindered by
profit motivations" could be the case?

Which one?

Rr

Re: Public Dissentiment

[James A. Donald]

On 1/28/2017 4:08 AM, Razer wrote:

Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more
reliable compass.


You mean government funded science:

What do you know, government funded science, like government funded 
Aztec theology, discovers that immense human sacrifices are necessary in 
order to ensure the sun rise, and the government gets to decide which 
humans to sacrifice.



Real science shows the data and the workings, the evidence and the 
calculations.  Global warming science, like Aztec theology, demands our 
faith.  And when you launch freedom of information requests demanding 
the evidence that shows we are doomed if the necessary human sacrifices 
are not made, you get stonewalled.


When Trump's team took charge they demanded the evidence and the 
calculations.  Still not getting them.

Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:46 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500
> John Newman  wrote:
> 
> 
 
 Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
 (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
 burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
 religious fervor.
>>> 
>>>Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored
>>> joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
>>>phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot
>>> the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
>>>considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.
>>> 
>>>Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
>>>but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant.
>>> They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.
>>> 
>> 
>> Whatever, you get my point.
> 
> 
>No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is
>that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>>
>>> 
 
 It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the
 validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using
 your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular
 conspiracy,
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
>>>what you said describes you better than it describes me. 
>>> 
>>>The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
>>>talking about a rational search for truth, which is also
>>> known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
>>>establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 
>> 
>> That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of
>> all that is correct.
> 
> 
>Neither are you nor your state-funded 'scientific' mafia. And
>your reply is just hand waving.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't.
 Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not
>>> 'real'. 
>>> 
>> 
>> You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a
>> hoax, 
> 
>That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You
>are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. 
> 
> 
>> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 
> 
>I never said that.
> 

Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young girl whom my 
girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly disabled by asperger's 
syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not getting into it again, please just 
leave it alone.

>So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that
>comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't
>make me a bible thumper. 
> 


How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT believe in 
anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with Trump and his cronies.


>Did I ever mention that your blind faith in state science means
>you are a lot closer to bible thumpers than I am? 
> 

Did i ever mention that i don't give a fuck about your idiotic and untrue 
non-sequitirs?


> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 
>>> 
>>>Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the
>>> 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are
>>> not mistakes. 
>> 
>> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. 
> 
>Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like
>you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of
>thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor
>'mistaken' altruists or something.
> 
> 

I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted as 
science by anyone, anywhere? 


>> Early
>> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,
> 
>AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with
>'science', fake or legitimate? 
> 
>


Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you love to pick 
at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is there have been all 
sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and rational inquiry AKA science 
is how they get solved.


> 
> 
>> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came
>> around, etc, etc. 
> 
>Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American
>Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true
>statist colors. 
> 

Tsk tsk all you want dickhead, it's a fact. All sorts of toxic shit was passed 
off prior to the fda (and after, for that matter). My anarchist utopia will 
have some sort of opt-in dope inspection line, but I'm happy for you to die of 
arsenic poisoning in yours.

>By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your
>Progressive Scientif

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500
John Newman  wrote:


> > > 
> > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> > > religious fervor.
> > 
> > Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored
> > joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
> > phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot
> > the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
> > considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.
> > 
> > Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
> > but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant.
> > They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.
> > 
> 
> Whatever, you get my point.


No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is
that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s).





> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the
> > > validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using
> > > your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular
> > > conspiracy,
> > 
> > 
> > Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
> > what you said describes you better than it describes me. 
> > 
> > The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
> > talking about a rational search for truth, which is also
> > known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
> > establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 
> 
> That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of
> all that is correct.


Neither are you nor your state-funded 'scientific' mafia. And
your reply is just hand waving.



> 
> > 
> > 
> > > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't.
> > > Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. 
> > 
> > 
> > I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not
> > 'real'. 
> > 
> 
> You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a
> hoax, 

That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You
are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. 


> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 

I never said that.

So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that
comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't
make me a bible thumper. 

Did I ever mention that your blind faith in state science means
you are a lot closer to bible thumpers than I am? 





> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 
> > 
> > Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the
> > 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are
> > not mistakes. 
> 
> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. 

Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like
you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of
thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor
'mistaken' altruists or something.


> Early
> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,

AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with
'science', fake or legitimate? 




> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came
> around, etc, etc. 

Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American
Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true
statist colors. 

By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your
Progressive Scientifc Anarchist FDA. 






> 
> > 
> > And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that
> > sort of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry
> > is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else
> > about 'science'.
> > 
> 
> Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would
> think that is obvious.
> 


What is obvious to me is that you are either unable to
understand what I'm saying, or ignoring it on purpose. I think
it's more the later than the former.
 





> > 
> > 
> > > but
> > > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science
> > > works. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:43:26PM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:07:09 -0500
> John Newman  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan  wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800
> > > Razer  wrote:
> > > 
> > >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago.
> > >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of
> > >> global events. 
> > > 
> > >American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly
> > >taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military
> > >party line.
> > > 
> > >The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
> > >people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
> > >electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
> > >course. 
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> > religious fervor.
> 
>   Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored joo-kristian
>   tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
>   phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot the
>   'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
>   considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.
> 
>   Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
>   but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. They
>   are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.
> 

Whatever, you get my point.

>   
> 
> > 
> > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity
> > of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own
> > brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy,
> 
> 
>   Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
>   what you said describes you better than it describes me. 
> 
>   The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
>   talking about a rational search for truth, which is also known
>   as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
>   establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 

That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of all
that is correct.

> 
> 
> > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint:
> > science and the scientific method are fucking real. 
> 
> 
>   I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not 'real'. 
> 

You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a hoax,
that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 

> 
> 
> > 
> > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 
> 
>   Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the 'medical'
>   'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are not mistakes. 

There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. Early
experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,
exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came
around, etc, etc. 

> 
>   And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that sort
>   of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry
>   is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else
>   about 'science'.
> 

Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would
think that is obvious.

> 
> 
> > but
> > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. 
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:07:09 -0500
John Newman  wrote:

> 
> > On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan  wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800
> > Razer  wrote:
> > 
> >> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago.
> >> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of
> >> global events. 
> > 
> >American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly
> >taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military
> >party line.
> > 
> >The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
> >people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
> >electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
> >course. 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> religious fervor.

Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored joo-kristian
tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot the
'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.

Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant. They
are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.



> 
> It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity
> of science when it suits you, and at the same time using your own
> brand of scientific speculation to support a particular conspiracy,


Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
what you said describes you better than it describes me. 

The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
talking about a rational search for truth, which is also known
as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 


> again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't. Hint:
> science and the scientific method are fucking real. 


I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not 'real'. 



> 
> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 

Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the 'medical'
'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are not mistakes. 

And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that sort
of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry
is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else
about 'science'.



> but
> they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. 

> 
> > 
> 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/27/2017 09:06 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> "Faith in science" is at best a grossly unreliable compass for those
> who do not understand the methods and history of science, and the
> impact of un- and anti-scientific influences on the practice of
> science in the real world.

Faith in free inquiry unhindered by profit motivations is a better, more
reliable compass.

I'd like to point out here that the National Park Service was the way
the public initially was informed of global climate change when an
un-vetted--by-deniers memo to park managers leaked stating (Paraphrase):
'As the climate continues to get warmer over the years we should prepare
for more summertime activities' a decade or more ago.

Rr

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 01/27/2017 10:17 AM, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/26/2017 10:13 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
>> 
>> The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and 
>> silencing opposition, rather the discovering and publishing
>> evidence.
>> 
>> 
> 
> You're entitled to your wrong interpolation.

I do see a major problem with public perception of science, driven by
social trends in academia and the self-promotion interests of media
personalities presented to the public as the "voice of Science."  I
call it the Scientician faith:  Just change out a Bishop's crook and
mitre for a PhD and lab coat and viola, a High Priest.

In academia, a naive but paradoxically condescending brand of atheism
is the de facto State Religion.  At best, certain religions where
"liberal" political views hold sway may be tolerated as beneficial
exercises in applied social psychology (i.e. Unitarian, Quaker).  The
rest are lumped together as infantile, socially destructive delusions,
and disposed of with a handy set of strawman attacks against their
participants:  Sneering atheists always know /much/ more about the
motives and behavior of "religious" people than those people know
themselves, and never hesitate to fill them in.  In many instances it
is painfully obvious that atheism is a neurotic expression of a
repressed fear that God - the nasty one from fundamentalist fairy
tales - might exist.

The modern and correct replacement for naive religious belief is
Scientism, a faith whose adherents believe that science provides final
answers to all meaningful questions about life, the Universe "and
everything."  These believers would not know a falsifiable hypothesis
if it bit them in the ass, and can not distinguish a consensus model
from Holy Writ.  In their minds and lives, science is the final Voice
of Authority, completely and exactly filling the role the Church held
in the Dark and Middle Ages as final arbiter of Truth.  As a general
rule, only working scientists know that this is ridiculous - and I do
not include the "social sciences" in this grouping.

The Scientician faith has spread beyond academia, establishing itself
as a popular cult through media personalities presented as High
Priests of Scientism.  In the process, personalities who serve as the
public Voices of Science have become useful tools for propagandists
tasked to promote "scientific" industrial products and public policy.
 Astrophysicists are especially well suited to this role, as their job
is to explain "everything."  Carl Sagan, a brilliant entertainer but
3rd rate scientist whose only notable contribution to the literature
(signing off on a geophysical model of nuclear winter) lasted for just
a few months before being discarded by community consensus, set the
pattern.  Neil Tyson now fills his shoes, reaching an audience of tens
of millions with The Truth about various controversial issues in
geophysics, the life sciences and public health policy on behalf of
corporate sponsors.  In the public mind, an astrophysicist is an
expert on everything that exists.

This brings us to a real problem of much more than "academic" concern:
 The role of corporate sponsorship as a regulating factor in research,
publication and the evolution of consensus models in the sciences.
The propaganda activities of petrochemicals lobbies, for instance,
offer literal bounties for anyone with a PhD in any field related to
geophysics who will go on record with the opinion that global warming
is not real, and/or that human activity has nothing to do with it.
These same information warriors fund a cottage industry that creates
spurious "proofs" that the Earth is actually cooling, for use in media
campaigns.  This has so far been a losing battle, in that an
overwhelming consensus supports global warming - but creating "doubt
and dissent" is sufficient to defend de facto genocidal public policy.

On the immunology, toxicology and epidemiology fronts, however, we
have a very different outcome:  Any findings harmful to the commercial
interests of the multi-billion dollar PharmaChem research and
development industry are in the "publish and perish" category for
workers in these fields.  As an example, any layman who examines
public health statistics looking for the miracle working impact of
"life saving vaccines" over the last century will notice that there
was no such impact; but people who are paid to do so must pretend
otherwise.  A two year study falsifying the results of the most
frequently cited papers indicating that flu vaccines has a significant
impact on mortality was greeted by the Journal of the American Medical
Association with, “To accept these results would be to say that the
Earth is flat!”  True story...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/11/does-the-vaccine-ma
tter/307723/

When genetic engineering first became possible in the early 1970s,
geneticists and microbiologists did not debate the safety of the
technol

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/26/2017 10:13 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
>
> The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and
> silencing opposition, rather the discovering and publishing evidence.
>
>


You're entitled to your wrong interpolation.

Re: Public Dissentiment

[James A. Donald]

On 01/26/2017 08:30 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

Science has been politicized.



On 1/27/2017 2:42 PM, Razer wrote:

So scientists are fighting back. 314 Action.


The links you give show scientists intimidating dissenters and silencing 
opposition, rather the discovering and publishing evidence.

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/26/2017 08:30 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

> Science has been politicized. 

So scientists are fighting back. 314 Action.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0125/In-Trump-s-America-we-may-see-more-scientists-running-for-office

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14397644/scientists-protest-trump

http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/25/14382514/scientists-march-on-washington-donald-trump-science-gag-order-epa

Ps... From the alt National Parks service twitter account.

"Just checkingYupwe've got more scientists and fact checkers
running a Twitter account than Donald Trump has in his cabinet."
https://twitter.com/AltNatParkSer/status/824589378370539521

Re: Public Dissentiment

[James A. Donald]

On 1/27/2017 1:07 PM, John Newman wrote:
> Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made,
> but they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science
> works.

It does not work like that any longer.  Science has been politicized.

People’s opinion on things they don’t really have first-hand
experience on is just social posturing, i.e. signaling. Messing with
signaling brings heavy social consequences so of course people get
angry.

You can’t convince people of what would harm them socially if it were
true, or what is not readily observable. That is why science was so
hard to invent, and is so hard to maintain these days.

The social forces that prevented science before the seventeenth
century, are once again preventing it today.

Science died shortly after World War II.

Science ruled intellectually starting in 1660 when the King, the fount
of all honors mortal and divine, gave his imprimatur to the Royal
Society.  The Royal Society knew what the Scientific Method was, and
gave status to scientists that followed it successfully, and denied
status to scientists that failed to follow it.

The King gave Kingly status to the Royal Society, in order to give
Kingly status to the Scientific Method.

Following World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal
Society, and Harvard does not know or much care what the Scientific
Method is.  Following the scientific method is no longer rewarded with
status, and violating it no longer penalized by loss of status.

Re: Public Dissentiment

[John Newman]

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 8:34 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800
> Razer  wrote:
> 
>> ... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago.
>> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of
>> global events. 
> 
>American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly
>taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military
>party line.
> 
>The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
>people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
>electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
>course. 
> 
>


Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not (necessarily) 
share any traits with the religious whack jobs that burned witches at the 
stake. They were driven by ignorance and religious fervor.

It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the validity of science 
when it suits you, and at the same time using your own brand of scientific 
speculation to support a particular conspiracy, again when it suits you. Either 
science is real, or it isn't. Hint: science and the scientific method are 
fucking real. 

Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, but they tend 
to be self correcting over time. That's how science works. 


> 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 04:57:19PM -0800, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/26/2017 03:43 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> > On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote:
> >> https://vimeo.com/200927432
> >>
> >> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively
> >> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating
> >> with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment
> >> analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts
> >> for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed
> >> negatively by algorithmic market makers.
> >>
> >> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame,
> >> uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created,
> >> temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the
> >> company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ 
> > Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;)
> 
> 
> Speaking of 'investment strategy' I'd like to know who shorted Lockheed
> before Trump said that 'thing' about the Lockheed F-35 knocking tens of
> billions of dollars of it's share values... for a bit. Trump's cronies
> indebted to him and all of their bffs are making bank on the market
> volatility created by every stoopid thing Trump says.
> 
> You'd figure all the 'truthers' would be on it... Considering they were
> all over the airline shorts pre-911 and never bothered to note all those
> airlines were in deep financial trouble and people were naturally
> shorting and playing those stock's volatility... Unlike Lockheed's
> situation... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. That's the
> problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of global events.
> 'Down the rabbit hole'.

For your "shorting" 'conspiracy' to be true, you'd have to evidence that
the pre-9/11 shorts were no more significant than "normal market long +
shorting behaviour".

Your theory may be correct, IDK, but I'd love to get clarity either
which way. Seriously, opinion porn does not help your attack on the
"truthers".

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:41:25 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01/26/2017 05:34 PM, the Argentine expletive-spewing ruffled grouse
> wrote:
> > The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
> > people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
> > electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
> > course. 
> 
> What this propaganda artist 


rayzer, you are the proganda scumbag here -  calling you an
'artist' would be like calling a retarded slug an artist.

best thing for a motherfuckier like you would be to die. But if
we are not that lucky, then you could at least go back to
twitter and facebook, the natural enviroment for turds like
you. 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/26/2017 05:34 PM, the Argentine expletive-spewing ruffled grouse
wrote:
> The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
>   people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
>   electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
>   course. 

What this propaganda artist (like a child with fingerpaints is an
'artist') is doing is called "Gaslighting". This is also what every rat
Trump has appointed to any position that involves 'informing' the public
is doing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/gaslighting-know-it-and-identify-it-protect-yourself

Rr

Re: Public Dissentiment

[juan]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:19 -0800
Razer  wrote:

>... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago.
> That's the problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of
> global events. 

American fascist rayzer dutifully doing his job - constantly
taking pot shots at anybody who doesn't toe the US military
party line.

The anti-conspiracy nutcases are exactly the same kind of
people who used to burn witchesor 'cure' gays with
electroshocks and lobotomies - all based on True Science of
course. 

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Razer]

On 01/26/2017 03:43 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote:
>> https://vimeo.com/200927432
>>
>> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively
>> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating
>> with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment
>> analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts
>> for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed
>> negatively by algorithmic market makers.
>>
>> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame,
>> uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created,
>> temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the
>> company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards
>> them.
>>
>> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ 
> Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;)


Speaking of 'investment strategy' I'd like to know who shorted Lockheed
before Trump said that 'thing' about the Lockheed F-35 knocking tens of
billions of dollars of it's share values... for a bit. Trump's cronies
indebted to him and all of their bffs are making bank on the market
volatility created by every stoopid thing Trump says.

You'd figure all the 'truthers' would be on it... Considering they were
all over the airline shorts pre-911 and never bothered to note all those
airlines were in deep financial trouble and people were naturally
shorting and playing those stock's volatility... Unlike Lockheed's
situation... but the 'truthers' got derailed years ago. That's the
problem with conspiracy theory (X) as an analysis of global events.
'Down the rabbit hole'.

Rr

> "In short, The kid wants to break the motherfucking shitstem You
> should be afraid of your children. #AbbieHoffman said it way back in
> the 60s"
https://twitter.com/AuntieImperial/status/824767005433552896

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Mirimir]

On 01/26/2017 03:51 PM, No wrote:
> https://vimeo.com/200927432
> 
> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively
> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating
> with algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment
> analysis techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts
> for social media that link to news stories that will be viewed
> negatively by algorithmic market makers.
> 
> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame,
> uncertainty about the targeted company’s stock will be created,
> temporarily affecting the price of the stock, consequently making the
> company’s shareholders aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards
> them.
> 
> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/ 

Perhaps also useful as investment strategy ;)

Re: Public Dissentiment

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:51 PM, No  wrote:

> https://vimeo.com/200927432
>
> Public Dissentiment is an online tool that helps protesters negatively
> impact the price of a publicly traded company’s stock by communicating with
> algorithmic market makers. By using the same algorithmic sentiment analysis
> techniques as financial trading bots, the app generates posts for social
> media that link to news stories that will be viewed negatively by
> algorithmic market makers.
>
> If enough of these posts are generated in the same time frame, uncertainty
> about the targeted company’s stock will be created, temporarily affecting
> the price of the stock, consequently making the company’s shareholders
> aware of the public’s negative sentiment towards them.
>
> Please visit: publicdissentiment.org/
>

​Thank you very much, NoNo!  <3​

I was verifying Derek Curry's projects in his Vimeo channel [1] and wow, I
am purring [2] !  There're interesting things [3] !  :D

[1]  https://vimeo.com/user36629242

[2]  https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/catPurrNoiseGenerator.php  (not a
Derek's project; it's just symbolic purring!)

[3]  Examples:  -  http://www.crowdsourcedintel.org/
 -  https://vimeo.com/154377684
 -  derekcurry.com/projects/emotionalstress.html


Kisses!  I'll forward this message, even knowing Ju@n will complain about
the public money being spent in academic researches, etc, etc...  I love to
provoke him, hihi!  :)

Ceci