Poll: What should women do about transdudes in female sports?

[Ame®icano]

Speaking of redefining meaning of words. Like it happened with "marriage", or with "vaccine".

Language is not merely a tool of communication, it is a tool of thought. Some time ago, I was reading up on linguistic relativity, and if it interest any of you, and I highly recommend the book by Caleb Everett. Although there is so much to say that it could easily turn to essay, my aim will be to keep it short and easy to understand, even for a leftist. Where to start?

There are African and South American tribes which can't tell their left arm from their right. There are also tribes that don't have a understanding of past or future. They don't have words for these concepts either. Just like western civilization did not have a word for the color "blue" or "orange" for centuries. They were named in relation to other colors. Orange was red-yellow. Once the fruit was discovered, it's color was named after it. If a concept is not named, it's not possible to think about it, at least not properly. Likewise, the philosophies of different cultures are most effected by the language of their people. Nietzsche noted it, and he was not alone. What's important is that you cannot truly understand the concept unless you can name it, and this affects now you think.

In recent time, we are witnessing attempts to legitimize words which are simplified versions of a certain language. Such efforts are an abomination and should be stopped, because by limiting the vocabulary of people, whether it be simply their ability to name things, or subtler things such as the separation of the subject in persons (like first, second, third...) or verb tenses, what becomes limited is people ability to think. Though such dialects can be interesting field of study, they should not be promoted as being legitimate, or being equal to fully developed languages. In fact, we often speak of the evolution of language, and change of meanings, and this is misnomer. Evolution does not go in one direction, it's merely an adaptation. What we should seek for language is not shamelessly changing meaning of words , but advancement. We want our language to grow, to have more words, to have better way to express our thoughts in more coherent manners. The appearance of bastardized words goes against this. If linguists desire to help advancement of language, instead of letting political narrative creating direction, they should be identifying concepts which lack names, developing new verb tenses and promoting the preservation of the integrity of our language.

What is happening today, language is used to manipulate people. Orwell touched on that a lot in 1984, and he's far from the only person who has. I mention him because of a concept he described in his book known as "crimestop". Simply put, crimestop is ability which people have of a stopping "bad thoughts" before they can form. Even out of context, this sounds like a terrible thing, yet most people are unaware that they themselves engage in crimestop without realizing it. What Orwell call "crimestop" today we can call it "thought stopping" widely used by politicians, leaders and very much everyone in position of power to prevent people from thinking about what they're told, and thus prevent them from disagreeing with them. The most common ones are chanting and ridiculing. Chanting is, as the name says, getting people to chant mantra or a slogan loudly. If you wonder why this is a thought stopping technique, try to do even basic math while singing the chorus of "Tubthumping" by Chumbawamba at the top of your lungs over and over. As for ridiculing, human beings are afraid of ridicule, especially of public ridicule. By attaching it to an idea or concept, people will automatically be repelled by it.

Thought stopping words are even more devious. They're result of ridiculing, but to the point where no active ridiculing is necessary for people to want to avoid thinking about those concepts. Certain stigma and derision are attached to those words and saying them will cause your audience to stop listening to you, regardless of what you were saying, of whether what you were saying is true, or of context. In this way, tyrannical create protected class, or protected concepts, or protected thoughts. The government would never work against you, because that's conspiracy, and conspiracy theorists are crazy! Black people in the US do not have higher crime rate than white people, because that implies a difference based on race, and that's racism, and racism is bad! Democracy is perfect, because questioning is anti-democratic, and anti-democracy means tyranny! Transgender "woman" is a woman and if you say it's not, you're bigot! Marriage is all about love between two people, definition has changed, not because meaning of a word changed, but because of political scores to be gained! So on and so on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Speaking of redefining meaning of words. Like it happened with "marriage", or with "vaccine".

Language is not merely a tool of communication, it is a tool of thought. Some time ago, I was reading up on linguistic relativity, and if it interest any of you, and I highly recommend the book by Caleb Everett. Although there is so much to say that it could easily turn to essay, my aim will be to keep it short and easy to understand, even for a leftist. Where to start?

There are African and South American tribes which can't tell their left arm from their right. There are also tribes that don't have a understanding of past or future. They don't have words for these concepts either. Just like western civilization did not have a word for the color "blue" or "orange" for centuries. They were named in relation to other colors. Orange was red-yellow. Once the fruit was discovered, it's color was named after it. If a concept is not named, it's not possible to think about it, at least not properly. Likewise, the philosophies of different cultures are most effected by the language of their people. Nietzsche noted it, and he was not alone. What's important is that you cannot truly understand the concept unless you can name it, and this affects now you think.

In recent time, we are witnessing attempts to legitimize words which are simplified versions of a certain language. Such efforts are an abomination and should be stopped, because by limiting the vocabulary of people, whether it be simply their ability to name things, or subtler things such as the separation of the subject in persons (like first, second, third...) or verb tenses, what becomes limited is people ability to think. Though such dialects can be interesting field of study, they should not be promoted as being legitimate, or being equal to fully developed languages. In fact, we often speak of the evolution of language, and change of meanings, and this is misnomer. Evolution does not go in one direction, it's merely an adaptation. What we should seek for language is not shamelessly changing meaning of words , but advancement. We want our language to grow, to have more words, to have better way to express our thoughts in more coherent manners. The appearance of bastardized words goes against this. If linguists desire to help advancement of language, instead of letting political narrative creating direction, they should be identifying concepts which lack names, developing new verb tenses and promoting the preservation of the integrity of our language.

What is happening today, language is used to manipulate people. Orwell touched on that a lot in 1984, and he's far from the only person who has. I mention him because of a concept he described in his book known as "crimestop". Simply put, crimestop is ability which people have of a stopping "bad thoughts" before they can form. Even out of context, this sounds like a terrible thing, yet most people are unaware that they themselves engage in crimestop without realizing it. What Orwell call "crimestop" today we can call it "thought stopping" widely used by politicians, leaders and very much everyone in position of power to prevent people from thinking about what they're told, and thus prevent them from disagreeing with them. The most common ones are chanting and ridiculing. Chanting is, as the name says, getting people to chant mantra or a slogan loudly. If you wonder why this is a thought stopping technique, try to do even basic math while singing the chorus of "Tubthumping" by Chumbawamba at the top of your lungs over and over. As for ridiculing, human beings are afraid of ridicule, especially of public ridicule. By attaching it to an idea or concept, people will automatically be repelled by it.

Thought stopping words are even more devious. They're result of ridiculing, but to the point where no active ridiculing is necessary for people to want to avoid thinking about those concepts. Certain stigma and derision are attached to those words and saying them will cause your audience to stop listening to you, regardless of what you were saying, of whether what you were saying is true, or of context. In this way, tyrannical create protected class, or protected concepts, or protected thoughts. The government would never work against you, because that's conspiracy, and conspiracy theorists are crazy! Black people in the US do not have higher crime rate than white people, because that implies a difference based on race, and that's racism, and racism is bad! Democracy is perfect, because questioning is anti-democratic, and anti-democracy means tyranny! Transgender "woman" is a woman and if you say it's not, you're bigot! Marriage is all about love between two people, definition has changed, not because meaning of a word changed, but because of political scores to be gained! So on and so on.

You are absolutely correct and this is demonstrated by the left daily on USMB among other places. Racism is actually the belief that one race is superior to another. That is to say in it's real meaning, it's racist to say blacks are superior to whites in athletics. It's true that they are, but technically a racist comment.

Today and for some years now, the word racist was changed by the leftists to describe anything negative said about people of another race even if statistics back up your claim. You're racist for bringing it up. Or you make the statement blacks are more violent than whites. That too is true, but labeled a racist remark by the left because we don't say these things in public. It's like the pregnant girl at the dinner party. Everybody knows, but you're not supposed to bring it up to anybody else.

They also changed the definition of the word Hate. Hate is anytime you disagree with a leftist point of view. Transgenders should not be using the public facilities of women. That's hate according to the left. It doesn't mean you are trying to protect the females in your family from embarrassment or potential crimes, it means you must really hate these weirdos that dress up like a woman to get into those facilities.

Only straight people should be allowed to marry. You must really hate gays for wanting to protect an institution that's been cherished as tradition since the founding of this great country of ours, or that it dates back to biblical times. It's hatred if you don't approve of their change.

They're still doing it today. Musk is buying Twitter. The left are parroting that him opening up the site to all opinions is censorship. If they look up the word censorship, it means to limit speech, not expand it. They totally reversed it's definition to try and make others side with them. a complete lie. Censorship is what Twitter has been doing for at least ten years now. But censorship is a dirty word, so they never applied it to themselves even though they approved of it all this time.

It's not that people don't have the ability to look up definitions, but like you said in the book 1984, people are prone to brainwashing, or they say things without thinking about it because Big Brother told them to. Voter-ID is racist. If you weren't brainwashed, you'd ask yourself how one law that applies equally to all is biased against anybody? Forget that states that use Voter-ID found do discrepancies between races, or the fact that a majority of blacks agree with positive ID. It's a racist practice in spite of evidence it has no barring against anybody. I was told to believe X, and I'm going to repeat it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ever since "Democrats" every law they created was designed to favor them.

Reminder, no Democrat voted for 14th Amendment. Remember the origins of Jim Crow laws? Generally speaking the atmosphere in the Southern states after the Civil War was one of lawless anarchy with paramilitary groups attempting to thwart the integration of blacks into the political and social framework of society. From 1865 to 1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the South for blacks who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, the Republican party began to lose control of Reconstruction as Democrats, aided by KKK , intimidated blacks and or physically prevented them from voting, thus allowing the Democrats to reclaim key offices. Once they reassumed power, the Democrats began passing laws to make voter registration and running for office more restrictive and racially discriminatory.

The disputed Presidential election of 1876 resulted in a "compromise" wherein Rutherford B. Hays was allowed to assume the Presidency in exchange for removing all federal troops from the previously occupied Southern states. After that last barrier was removed, Jim Crow laws really took off throughout the South. Blacks were still elected to local offices in the 1880's but between 1890 and 1910, ten of the eleven former Confederate states, starting with Mississippi, passed new constitutions or amendments that effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites. The most common methods were the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and mental examinations that were rigged against blacks and the poor. Not just that, they pass the laws that blacks had to be employed, and if they're not, they put them to prisons, and then state would "rent" them from prisons to do hard work on plantations. Former slave owners got their "slaves" back for cheap, because they didn't care to take care of them.

Democrats invented eugenics, to keep undesirable, including blacks from breading. For the same reason they created Planned Parenthood, that today has the same purpose as back in a day, to provide abortions. Of course, today they're doing it because they want to "help women" and their issues, right?

The biggest migration of blacks to Democrat party happened during FDR. Not because FDR wasn't racist, but because he gave them welfare in exchange for their votes. Imagine how desperate they've must been when they were voting for Democrats after all what Democrats did to them during slavery, and post-slavery and segregation era. Even today, most blacks are voting for Democrats for the same reasons they were voting for FDR, and if anyone dares to question that, well... "you ain't black". Democrat's plantation never ended, it just took different form. Democrats became experts of defining, and redefining meaning of words, or definitions, and changing rules to fit their agenda, all in order to stay in power.

It's kind of comedic when you really think about it. When the left claims Trump is racist and you ask them to point out one thing he ever said or did that was racist, they can't come up with a thing. In the meantime, they voted for the candidate that said the most racist things against blacks in modern times. Trump re-instituted funds to historic black colleges that DumBama took away. He released prisoners that were serving time for non-violent offenses, many whom were black. He brought the lowest unemployment rate for women and all minorities since records were kept. He offered federal help to reduce violent crime in lib cities like Chicago where blacks are killed by the dozens on a weekly basis, and they declined his offer. But Trump is the racist.

Trump never made a comment like DumBama was articulate and clean! He never said he didn't want to send his kids into a racial jungle, or that the reason black kids can't read is because their parents are just as illiterate. But we're the ones that voted for a racist, not them.

The Communists found themselves in a pickle. They wanted to keep restrictions and exaggerate the dangers of the new covid variant to rig the election like they did the last time. But wait! How could they do that while Dementia was getting rid of Title 42? Too controversial. They had to choose between one or the other. So between the polls and their mad desire to flood the country with illegals, they decided their best advantage is flooding the country with invaders and give up the notion that covid is death hanging around every doorway.

 

[JoeB131]

You are absolutely correct and this is demonstrated by the left daily on USMB among other places. Racism is actually the belief that one race is superior to another. That is to say in it's real meaning, it's racist to say blacks are superior to whites in athletics. It's true that they are, but technically a racist comment.

Naw, man, Racist is thinking your Disability Government Cheese is better than their HUD government cheese.

It's kind of comedic when you really think about it. When the left claims Trump is racist and you ask them to point out one thing he ever said or did that was racist, they can't come up with a thing.

Actually, I've given you lists many times, and you ALWAYS have an excuse.

The Communists found themselves in a pickle. They wanted to keep restrictions and exaggerate the dangers of the new covid variant to rig the election like they did the last time. But wait! How could they do that while Dementia was getting rid of Title 42? Too controversial. They had to choose between one or the other. So between the polls and their mad desire to flood the country with illegals, they decided their best advantage is flooding the country with invaders and give up the notion that covid is death hanging around every doorway.

Or they just realized the numbers of new cases and deaths are below a level of concern.

The problem with Title 42 is that it was an abuse of the system.

 

[JoeB131]

In recent time, we are witnessing attempts to legitimize words which are simplified versions of a certain language. Such efforts are an abomination and should be stopped, because by limiting the vocabulary of people, whether it be simply their ability to name things, or subtler things such as the separation of the subject in persons (like first, second, third...) or verb tenses, what becomes limited is people ability to think. Though such dialects can be interesting field of study, they should not be promoted as being legitimate, or being equal to fully developed languages. In fact, we often speak of the evolution of language, and change of meanings, and this is misnomer. Evolution does not go in one direction, it's merely an adaptation. What we should seek for language is not shamelessly changing meaning of words , but advancement. We want our language to grow, to have more words, to have better way to express our thoughts in more coherent manners. The appearance of bastardized words goes against this. If linguists desire to help advancement of language, instead of letting political narrative creating direction, they should be identifying concepts which lack names, developing new verb tenses and promoting the preservation of the integrity of our language.

Avoiding most of your word salad, language evolves all the time.

If some transsexual* in a blue box dropped you off in 10th century England, you would not be able to communicate with the locals. English was a completely different language back then.

(*- after years of being played by men, Doctor Who is now being played by a woman. Guess who freaked out about it.)

Let's give you guys another example that doesn't threaten your masculinity.

Back in the day, people suffering from Down Syndrome were called "Mongoloids". People realized this term was both racist and insensitive, so they came up with the word "retarded". Retarded eventually became a derogatory word, so they came up with "Special Needs". Today schools use the term "Differentiated learners".

So, yes, definitions do change to reflect a society's views on the social order. This is a good thing.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's kind of comedic when you really think about it. When the left claims Trump is racist and you ask them to point out one thing he ever said or did that was racist, they can't come up with a thing. In the meantime, they voted for the candidate that said the most racist things against blacks in modern times. Trump re-instituted funds to historic black colleges that DumBama took away. He released prisoners that were serving time for non-violent offenses, many whom were black. He brought the lowest unemployment rate for women and all minorities since records were kept. He offered federal help to reduce violent crime in lib cities like Chicago where blacks are killed by the dozens on a weekly basis, and they declined his offer. But Trump is the racist.

Trump never made a comment like DumBama was articulate and clean! He never said he didn't want to send his kids into a racial jungle, or that the reason black kids can't read is because their parents are just as illiterate. But we're the ones that voted for a racist, not them.

The Communists found themselves in a pickle. They wanted to keep restrictions and exaggerate the dangers of the new covid variant to rig the election like they did the last time. But wait! How could they do that while Dementia was getting rid of Title 42? Too controversial. They had to choose between one or the other. So between the polls and their mad desire to flood the country with illegals, they decided their best advantage is flooding the country with invaders and give up the notion that covid is death hanging around every doorway.

With mandates getting blocked by courts, and people forgetting that COVID even existed, I'm sure Democrats have another card up in their sleeve.
Take Michigan for example, after rigging the last election for Biden, Republicans are trying to prevent Democrats rigging the next one. However...

"Every citizen of Michigan has a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote and should be free to exercise this right without obstruction," Whitmer wrote.

What about right to keep and bear arms, or right to peacefully assemble? Noooo, you can't have that, and the "ministry of truth" would confirm that.

 

[Ame®icano]

When you think left can't possibly go any more extreme, they come up with another attack out our boys:

Leading Children’s Hospital Offers Advice For Boys To ‘Tuck’ Their Genitals Out Of Sight​

Either you hide them boys, or they gonna mandate it, or refuse the service.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With mandates getting blocked by courts, and people forgetting that COVID even existed, I'm sure Democrats have another card up in their sleeve.
Take Michigan for example, after rigging the last election for Biden, Republicans are trying to prevent Democrats rigging the next one. However...

View attachment 638583



What about right to keep and bear arms, or right to peacefully assemble? Noooo, you can't have that, and the "ministry of truth" would confirm that.

Their so-called Voters Right act is even worse. They want to run elections stripping away the states right to conduct their own. Polls open for weeks, Voter-Id not allowed, no proof you are who you claim you are, just a law written to have the maximum amount of voter fraud possible.

 

[JoeB131]

Their so-called Voters Right act is even worse. They want to run elections stripping away the states right to conduct their own. Polls open for weeks, Voter-Id not allowed, no proof you are who you claim you are, just a law written to have the maximum amount of voter fraud possible.

Not seeing why any of those are bad things, and given the long history of racist voter suppression, there SHOULD be a federal standards.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not seeing why any of those are bad things, and given the long history of racist voter suppression, there SHOULD be a federal standards.

The better for the party that happens to be in power to keep itself in power, by controlling the system by which it might lose that power.

Just look at California to see how this works out. The Democraps have successfully corrupted our electoral system intentionally to make it easier for Democraps to stay in power, more difficult for non-Democraps to challenge them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The better for the party that happens to be in power to keep itself in power, by controlling the system by which it might lose that power.

Just look at California to see how this works out. The Democraps have successfully corrupted our electoral system intentionally to make it easier for Democraps to stay in power, more difficult for non-Democraps to challenge them.

That's why they started the motor voter nonsense. If you are not interested in voting, too bad. When you apply for or renew a drivers license you are automatically registered to vote. And if you are an illegal who is technically not allowed to vote, you are allowed to have a drivers license so you can get drunk and kill Americans. So when you come in to get one, we might accidentally not mark your license as not being allowed to vote. Wink-wink.

The more politically ignorant voters, the better chance Democrats have winning elections.

 

[JoeB131]

The better for the party that happens to be in power to keep itself in power, by controlling the system by which it might lose that power.

Just look at California to see how this works out. The Democraps have successfully corrupted our electoral system intentionally to make it easier for Democraps to stay in power, more difficult for non-Democraps to challenge them.

Uh, yeah, guy, it's called voting.

Frankly, I don't know how the Republicans stay in power. They don't give a flying fuck about anyone making less than six figures, and whenever they get in charge, they fuck up the economy.

The only way they do stay in is by playing on the racial, religious, and sexual fears of straight white people. Which isn't a good method when whites are becoming a shrinking slice of the pie.

if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat!

 

[JoeB131]

That's why they started the motor voter nonsense. If you are not interested in voting, too bad. When you apply for or renew a drivers license you are automatically registered to vote. And if you are an illegal who is technically not allowed to vote, you are allowed to have a drivers license so you can get drunk and kill Americans. So when you come in to get one, we might accidentally not mark your license as not being allowed to vote. Wink-wink.

The more politically ignorant voters, the better chance Democrats have winning elections.

Of course, you guys have been making this claim about "illegals" voting since 2000, and never came up with any proof it happens in any significant numbers.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's why they started the motor voter nonsense. If you are not interested in voting, too bad. When you apply for or renew a drivers license you are automatically registered to vote. And if you are an illegal who is technically not allowed to vote, you are allowed to have a drivers license so you can get drunk and kill Americans. So when you come in to get one, we might accidentally not mark your license as not being allowed to vote. Wink-wink.

The more politically ignorant voters, the better chance Democrats have winning elections.

I said it many times, every leftist political agenda is based on a lie. Whether is voting rights, or immigration, or women rights, COVID, climate change, you name it, it's a lie.

Take "climate change issue, where leftists claim is that 98% of scientists agree, that global cooling/global warming/climate change is the major problem. And leftists demagogues will repeat it over an over without thinking, al while claiming that they're educated ones. If you say that there is 98% of something, there must be somewhere remaining 2% that makes it whole 100%. There also must be a list of all the scientists that agree, or disagree with something. Second, the science does not proceed by consensus, science is not democratic. At one time in history, there was consensus that the earth was flat, and everyone believed in that, everyone but one man who said that was not true. The idea that everyone who said to you that when majority agree with something, so it must be true, is not a scientist. The law of gravity do not get agreed by a consensus, by a fault, or by democracy, science is all about truth, and single person can be correct when speaking scientific truth, regardless that everyone else disagree with that person. Whenever leftists are referring to 98% of scientists "agree" on something, they know they're losing, so they're using illogic.

If you ask leftists to provide you a list of "all scientists that agree", they would refer to IPCC , that have about 1000, who dissent with the other opinion, and although is growing over time, since funding is increasing, it doesn't matter if they agree, when truth is a truth. Truth is not done by majority, we cannot vote in this thread, or on this message board, about laws of physics, and somehow make it right by voting. By the way, the IPCC is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it's intergovernmental agency that decide what they want by voting, or agreeing, it's not interscientific panel, that relies on truth, otherwise they wouldn't be cooking data to make it fit their narrative. They're like Intergovernmental Ministry of Truth that will tell you what to believe, and if you don't you're "denier". Oh crap, such a bad word everyone is afraid of.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I said it many times, every leftist political agenda is based on a lie. Whether is voting rights, or immigration, or women rights, COVID, climate change, you name it, it's a lie.

Take "climate change issue, where leftists claim is that 98% of scientists agree, that global cooling/global warming/climate change is the major problem. And leftists demagogues will repeat it over an over without thinking, al while claiming that they're educated ones. If you say that there is 98% of something, there must be somewhere remaining 2% that makes it whole 100%. There also must be a list of all the scientists that agree, or disagree with something. Second, the science does not proceed by consensus, science is not democratic. At one time in history, there was consensus that the earth was flat, and everyone believed in that, everyone but one man who said that was not true. The idea that everyone who said to you that when majority agree with something, so it must be true, is not a scientist. The law of gravity do not get agreed by a consensus, by a fault, or by democracy, science is all about truth, and single person can be correct when speaking scientific truth, regardless that everyone else disagree with that person. Whenever leftists are referring to 98% of scientists "agree" on something, they know they're losing, so they're using illogic.

If you ask leftists to provide you a list of "all scientists that agree", they would refer to IPCC , that have about 1000, who dissent with the other opinion, and although is growing over time, since funding is increasing, it doesn't matter if they agree, when truth is a truth. Truth is not done by majority, we cannot vote in this thread, or on this message board, about laws of physics, and somehow make it right by voting. By the way, the IPCC is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it's intergovernmental agency that decide what they want by voting, or agreeing, it's not interscientific panel, that relies on truth, otherwise they wouldn't be cooking data to make it fit their narrative. They're like Intergovernmental Ministry of Truth that will tell you what to believe, and if you don't you're "denier". Oh crap, such a bad word everyone is afraid of.

Where do scientists get their money from to earn a living? That's right, government. Yes it gets funneled through colleges, but it's still government money. Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

When talking about climate change, I often picture a classroom of students in about a hundred years or so. The teacher explains to the kids that in the early 2000's, man though they could control the climate, and the kids burst out in laughter as we did when our teachers told us at one time man thought the earth was flat.

Many years ago the Cuyahoga river here caught on fire. The theory was that industry could dump chemicals into the water, and it will simply dissipate due to the size of the great lakes. When the river caught on fire, we realized the theory was flawed so we did something about it. We spent the money because we had empirical evidence that chemicals in the water won't go away. Water in itself is not flammable.

We spent trillions of dollars on climate change which there is no evidence man is responsible for.. After the generations of spending and the ton of money we put into it, the climate change people are more pissed off today than they were over 50 years ago. Climate change is a bottomless money pit that all the money in the country......in the world can't fill. It will always need more.

That's why I like to fk with these climate change people by asking a simple question: What would it take to shut you people up forever? What metric would make you happy and how much will it cost us to meet that goal? So far I've never gotten an answer.

 

[JoeB131]

Welfare Ray, Science Genius.

Where do scientists get their money from to earn a living? That's right, government. Yes it gets funneled through colleges, but it's still government money. Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

When talking about climate change, I often picture a classroom of students in about a hundred years or so. The teacher explains to the kids that in the early 2000's, man though they could control the climate, and the kids burst out in laughter as we did when our teachers told us at one time man thought the earth was flat.

In 100 years, kids will be fighting in a Mad Max world for the few resources we have left.

Oh, people never thought the world was flat. If your education went beyond grade school, you'd know this.

Many years ago the Cuyahoga river here caught on fire. The theory was that industry could dump chemicals into the water, and it will simply dissipate due to the size of the great lakes. When the river caught on fire, we realized the theory was flawed so we did something about it. We spent the money because we had empirical evidence that chemicals in the water won't go away. Water in itself is not flammable.

You work like there was some great thought process that went into this.

Here's what happened. Big Business dumped flammable chemicals into the water. Government finally made them stop. Big business packed up and left Cleveland, turning it into the Zombie-wasteland it is today. Ray proceeded to blame black people.

We spent trillions of dollars on climate change which there is no evidence man is responsible for.. After the generations of spending and the ton of money we put into it, the climate change people are more pissed off today than they were over 50 years ago. Climate change is a bottomless money pit that all the money in the country......in the world can't fill. It will always need more.

Trillions? Really? Where? Besides the fact that there is PLENTY of evidence for AGW, we really haven't invested that much into CO2 reduction.

That's why I like to fk with these climate change people by asking a simple question: What would it take to shut you people up forever? What metric would make you happy and how much will it cost us to meet that goal? So far I've never gotten an answer.

Well, it's like every other question you ask, Welfare Ray... When you get an answer you don't like, you ignore it.

"I can't possibly find another job that doesn't involve driving a truck."
"Gee, here's a whole list of them on Indeed!"

 

[JoeB131]

I said it many times, every leftist political agenda is based on a lie. Whether is voting rights, or immigration, or women rights, COVID, climate change, you name it, it's a lie.

Take "climate change issue, where leftists claim is that 98% of scientists agree, that global cooling/global warming/climate change is the major problem. And leftists demagogues will repeat it over an over without thinking, al while claiming that they're educated ones. If you say that there is 98% of something, there must be somewhere remaining 2% that makes it whole 100%. There also must be a list of all the scientists that agree, or disagree with something. Second, the science does not proceed by consensus, science is not democratic. At one time in history, there was consensus that the earth was flat, and everyone believed in that, everyone but one man who said that was not true. The idea that everyone who said to you that when majority agree with something, so it must be true, is not a scientist. The law of gravity do not get agreed by a consensus, by a fault, or by democracy, science is all about truth, and single person can be correct when speaking scientific truth, regardless that everyone else disagree with that person. Whenever leftists are referring to 98% of scientists "agree" on something, they know they're losing, so they're using illogic.

If you ask leftists to provide you a list of "all scientists that agree", they would refer to IPCC , that have about 1000, who dissent with the other opinion, and although is growing over time, since funding is increasing, it doesn't matter if they agree, when truth is a truth. Truth is not done by majority, we cannot vote in this thread, or on this message board, about laws of physics, and somehow make it right by voting. By the way, the IPCC is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it's intergovernmental agency that decide what they want by voting, or agreeing, it's not interscientific panel, that relies on truth, otherwise they wouldn't be cooking data to make it fit their narrative. They're like Intergovernmental Ministry of Truth that will tell you what to believe, and if you don't you're "denier". Oh crap, such a bad word everyone is afraid of.

Sigh... most decisions are come to by consensus... you'll always have the dissenters.

For myself, I don't need to know if it's 95% or 98% of climate scientists who agree, I just have to look at the world around me. The dying coral reefs, the melting icecaps, the buildings in northern regions that are collapsing because the permafrost beneath them is melting. Or just simply the fact that winters in Chicago aren't nearly as cold as they were when I was growing up. I don't think I've seen a "White Christmas" in years. When I was a kid, we usually had healthy amounts of snow by November. Now we don't see it until January.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh, people never thought the world was flat. If your education went beyond grade school, you'd know this.

As it happens, three quarters of the Earth is covered with water.

And almost none of that water is carbonated.

So, the Earth is, indeed, flat.

 

[JoeB131]

As it happens, three quarters of the Earth is covered with water.

And almost none of that water is carbonated.

So, the Earth is, indeed, flat.

Um, is this that famous Mormon Humor I heard about?

 

[Ame®icano]

Where do scientists get their money from to earn a living? That's right, government. Yes it gets funneled through colleges, but it's still government money. Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them?

When talking about climate change, I often picture a classroom of students in about a hundred years or so. The teacher explains to the kids that in the early 2000's, man though they could control the climate, and the kids burst out in laughter as we did when our teachers told us at one time man thought the earth was flat.

Many years ago the Cuyahoga river here caught on fire. The theory was that industry could dump chemicals into the water, and it will simply dissipate due to the size of the great lakes. When the river caught on fire, we realized the theory was flawed so we did something about it. We spent the money because we had empirical evidence that chemicals in the water won't go away. Water in itself is not flammable.

We spent trillions of dollars on climate change which there is no evidence man is responsible for.. After the generations of spending and the ton of money we put into it, the climate change people are more pissed off today than they were over 50 years ago. Climate change is a bottomless money pit that all the money in the country......in the world can't fill. It will always need more.

That's why I like to fk with these climate change people by asking a simple question: What would it take to shut you people up forever? What metric would make you happy and how much will it cost us to meet that goal? So far I've never gotten an answer.

Some three hundred years ago, Trenchard and Gordon wrote in Cato's letters, something that is so applicable to our own times: "Nothing certainly is more threatening, or more to be apprehended, than a corrupt politician. A knave in power is as much to be dreaded, as a fool with a firebrand in a magazine of powder: You have scarce a bare chance for not being blown up. From the wicked and worthless men, who engrossed all the places at Rome in the latter days of the commonwealth, and from the monstrous prodigalities, infamous briberies, and endless corruptions, promoted by these men, the sudden thraldom of that glorious city might easily have been foreseen."

What's most interesting is that corrupt politicians are major opponents of First and Second Amendments, that are created primarily to protect us from corrupt politicians.