Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Politics  (Read 388652 times)

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #360 on: September 06, 2013, 01:05:22 PM »
I see no one here is a father. When I found out my wife was pregnant and I saw for the first time my kid, sucking his lil tumb (at 5 1/2 months old) wow that was something.

IT
IS
A
LIFE  
.


Don't want kids? Use a condom. Don't want kids EVER? Neuter yourself. Got pregnant? Now you have responsibilities...

Don't kill no one because you have a weak character that values a job or your own entertainment more than your own offspring and the continuation of your lineage.

Once I've read: Kids are *your* future. It is the *only* way to live "forever". You'll live thru your offspring.

So true.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:29:46 PM by unl0cker »

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Politics
« Reply #361 on: September 06, 2013, 02:30:56 PM »
How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.
Darvince, a fetus is would be a living thing. Does it not have cells? Does it not have DNA? It's simple, a fetus is fucking life.
Quote
Do you think it is wrong if the woman is raped?

Got sarcasm?! Yes of course not!! But this is BS excuse. The VAST majority of abortions are NOT based on this horrible crime. Is simply because the woman was not careful enough and got pregnant.

Exceptions DO exists. Does not justify the crime of killing an unborn life for personal or professional reasons.

If abortions are legal, then I think mother should be allowed to end the life of her infant from 0 to 1 yr old at her own choosing. After all, there ins't much of a difference between a 6 month old unborn child, and a 6 months old child. A 6 month unborn child it is almost COMPLETE, at least the part that make the child a human, the brain. Still in the "oven" just to grow a bit more.

Bill gates loves abortions... His "charity" is actually directed towards this. How about forceful/not willing vasectomy? That can be good as well. After all, all these african negros won't stop having kids man. Is hateful! How dare they... The world is already overpopulated, and these low life peoples are putting more and more on it. Right?!

We're living in such "gomorrean" times. I mean, let's think this thru.


About the rape thing, in a situation where a woman gets raped and ends up being pregnant, I would find it acceptable for the woman to get an abortion, Actually, would there even be a way for the fetus to be terminate beforehand?

Anyway, I approve abortion. It's kind of, well, sad that a fetus has to die because of their mother's decision to do abortion, but I just think that if the woman really does not want to have a baby, well I guess go for it. But what I really stress more is safe sex, and that sort of thing. I am not saying that abortion should be done because some teens were not responsible enough to use birth control methods. Abortion should just be for in case something wrong happens. (Condoms don't work 100 percent of the time)

About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #362 on: September 06, 2013, 02:37:44 PM »
Quote
How is the fetus life? It cannot experience anything yet, it is still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving, let alone think or experience.

How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #363 on: September 06, 2013, 03:03:58 PM »
Quote from: tuto99
About the rape thing, in a situation where a woman gets raped and ends up being pregnant, I would find it acceptable for the woman to get an abortion, Actually, would there even be a way for the fetus to be terminate beforehand?

Sadly, I would too.

Quote from: tuto99
About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(

The media is a whore. Biased, as much of their income comes from companies that profit from the current situation in that area, as in all areas. The information then can't be trusted. These channels are polluted.

Development. You got that right. I don't know the numbers, but I'll guess africa must have a high birth rate right now. Development, and not people having kids like rabbits going all nuts in a "Baccarian" festival. More development means more energy, more energy means IMMEDIATELY more people. Check the population growth of the last 200  or so years. There we were, 300 yrs ago, then came coal, that boom in population was huge. Then came oil, mega boom in population growth, really fast this time. The graph for this is "funny".

The problem is, these rich elite maggots want to inherit the earth, and are against ANY kind of industrialization whatsoever. The "law" now is deindustrialization, green nut job ideas to create control, and population reduction thru disease, wars, capping of resources and... abortions. This is what you see in the last 40 or so years, and was heavily accentuated in the last 20 years after Gangstah Clinton came along.

Check this graph extracted from This Awesome Piece of Text




Whatever these people in their core are for, I'm against it! That's the truth for me.

For abortions? I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it!

And so on..
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 03:32:09 PM by unl0cker »

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Politics
« Reply #364 on: September 06, 2013, 03:09:04 PM »
Wars are bad. Junk food: addicting but bad. Abortions you already know. Monopolies? I just don't find it fair. The other stuff I don't know about.

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #365 on: September 06, 2013, 03:17:38 PM »
Monopolies aren't just "unfair". It is enslavement.

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Politics
« Reply #366 on: September 06, 2013, 03:42:41 PM »
Monopolies aren't just "unfair". It is enslavement.
Yeah I would figure.

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #367 on: September 06, 2013, 03:54:30 PM »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #368 on: September 06, 2013, 03:57:57 PM »
paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.
The point was not that the opinion or thought was formed, but rather the ability to be able to form it.

I see no one here is a father. When I found out my wife was pregnant and I saw for the first time my kid, sucking his lil tumb (at 5 1/2 months old) wow that was something.

IT
IS
A
LIFE  
.


Don't want kids? Use a condom. Don't want kids EVER? Neuter yourself. Got pregnant? Now you have responsibilities...

Don't kill no one because you have a weak character that values a job or your own entertainment more than your own offspring and the continuation of your lineage.

Once I've read: Kids are *your* future. It is the *only* way to live "forever". You'll live thru your offspring.

So true.
So you would rather not bother to offer a choice, and instead force your opinions upon people who don't even know you?

How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.
Wrong. I knew how to read when i was 3 years old. I don't know about anyone else, but 3 year olds may or may not know a lot depending upon how good of parents they had. They might be dependent upon them to you know, survive like, be fed, but they are not incapacitated vegetables.

And finally...

For abortions?  I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it! (Not so sure about this one... ?)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 04:06:46 PM by atomic7732 »

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Politics
« Reply #369 on: September 06, 2013, 04:04:13 PM »
Yeah, I can kind of sense infliction in your argument, unl0cker.

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #370 on: September 06, 2013, 04:14:52 PM »
Quote
i don't think it matters whether it's life or not.

I think is ALL it matters.

I don't mind to tear down a wall to make you more successful. I'm sorry to dump this on you all, I really really am. I always try to shield myself from violence and horrendoous pictures and videos. Like dead people, plane crashes, shot people, etc. I find looking at this bad for myself, I know how it is and I really don't need to see ot have any morbid curiosity about it.

But if you have the stomach, see these: http://www.advocatesoflife.com/graphicabortionimages.htm

That my friend, IS life.

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #371 on: September 06, 2013, 04:30:47 PM »
Quote
Wrong. I knew how to read when i was 3 years old. I don't know about anyone else, but 3 year olds may or may not know a lot depending upon how good of parents they had. They might be dependent upon them to you know, survive like, be fed, but they are not incapacitated vegetables.

Maybe so. 3? Really? Fack.. It took me almost 10. lo.0l

I'm lost in this particular discussion. I don't know if you are for, against, or else. But anyway, smart and/or aware or not, this is life. Why won't someone grant that life the chance they themselves had? Pretty egoistical and/or narcissistic uh?!

If you kill, you go to jail. So you have the RESPONSIBILITY not to let yourself kill someone. If you get pregnant, you should have the same social responsibility to not only give life, but to cherish, feed, teach, and make that life the most it can be.

I'm know to generalize things (bad bad), and I'll be crucified for this, but abortion these days are mainly for sluts gangbangers that like to have sex like there is no tomorrow and free themselves from the "burden" of having to "make" another human being, from head to toe, from birth to graduation. Whata burden that must be uh?! :(  Aside from high risk pregnancies, rapes, and some other to think small cases, abortions should be aborted.


Quote
So you would rather not bother to offer a choice, and instead force your opinions upon people who don't even know you?

I'm not forcing nothing on you or anybody else. This is MY way of think, which by the way not only might not reflect what other people think but also does not affect any law or lawmaker, thus have no real effect on anybody other than myself.

If I was to be Cesar, that is the way it would go down. ;=)


Oh...

Quote
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!


Wtpf... Hey, can I have a loan? I have this really really good idea. (shhhh he's a banker. :P)

ehhehehe

Let me be honest and edit this:

For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!

Ok must be some, control. but not like it is.. the maggots it get all taxfree, and John McLaborworker gets scraps at high prices.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 04:46:03 PM by unl0cker »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #372 on: September 06, 2013, 05:58:10 PM »
I'm lost in this particular discussion. I don't know if you are for, against, or else.
I outlined my beliefs at the end of my previous post. Which you seemed to understand at the end of your post, so I'm not sure how you're lost.

this is life. Why won't someone grant that life the chance they themselves had?
You know what else is life? Bacteria. You know that disinfectant you use? Don't. Because it's killing what life there could be in all those splitting bacteria.

Ok must be some, control. but not like it is.. the maggots it get all taxfree, and John McLaborworker gets scraps at high prices.
I don't see how you can't be for state control, when you complain about all the big wig money makers. Resources (the acquiring, and use of) would be managed by the government, not private companies.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 06:04:30 PM by atomic7732 »

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #373 on: September 06, 2013, 06:37:57 PM »
paragraph two: there are two men. before going to bed, one man thinks that he would not like to be killed. the other just falls asleep. During the night, criminals raid the house, shoot the man who didn't bother saying he didn't want to be killed. Just like the baby, the man never thought about it, thus his want was invalid.

Now the above argument doesn't make sense to me, thus i don't think yours does either.
The point was not that the opinion or thought was formed, but rather the ability to be able to form it.


what if the other man did not say he didn't want to be killed because he was mentally retarded and couldn't? or ignoring the analogy completely, why does the ability to form thoughts give one object the right to become sentient over another object?

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Politics
« Reply #374 on: September 06, 2013, 07:40:42 PM »
How then exactly this is different from a 3 yrs old infant?

"did not experience anything yet AND still completely dependent on another creature to continue surviving"

Fit's the bill. Unless we are now going a step further on the agenda, it is not a valid argument.
No, it doesn't. Three year olds may not yet have the capacity to form concrete long term memories, but they can move, experience, see, hear, taste, smell, they can thirst, hunger, they can sense temperature and limb location, and all other senses that adult humans have. From this, I can conclude that they are life as they fit all criteria for life:
1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.
2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from their surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.
3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.
4. All life forms reproduce.
Fetuses begin to have the third characteristic when they are around 20 weeks old, with sexual organs developing around 10 weeks. Also, they develop the first two immediately, when they are still a fertilized egg and not an embryo. You seem to mostly be against late term abortions, after the 20th week, when all four criteria of life are in place. Do you feel that when they still do not have all four characteristics of life, that it is immoral to end a non-life? While three year olds cannot do the last one yet, they definitely have the organs in place to do so later in life, and from this, I can conclude that they are life.

Yqt1001

  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • Airline Empires
Re: Politics
« Reply #375 on: September 06, 2013, 07:57:27 PM »
I know this is completely off topic, but this is a really interesting blog post about the LGBT debate in Russia that I found.

http://www.escinsight.com/2013/09/04/from-russia-with-love-boycotts-lgbt-rights-and-eurovision/

Although it's mostly about Eurovision, it does bring some interesting ideas. Things like Boycotting the Sochi Olympics in 6 months would be bad for LGBT rights among other things. Uses examples like the human right disaster that was Baku 2012 Eurovision as a sort of source, and many citations from people there (seems to ignore the winner, Loreen, her parade against Azerbaijan after she won, but whatever).

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Politics
« Reply #376 on: September 06, 2013, 09:00:47 PM »
Quote from: tuto99
About how African nations having really high birth rates, think about this:
I don't know much, but I do know that one of the reasons birth rates are so high in Africa is because of the developing nations. I would guess that things like, education, would be poor. So sex ed classes may be limited or not available at all. There are other things that may associate with the high birth rates, so you can do some more research.

You guys have a right to disagree with me, but please don't inflict anything on me. I don't like mean people. :(

The media is a whore. Biased, as much of their income comes from companies that profit from the current situation in that area, as in all areas. The information then can't be trusted. These channels are polluted.
The media is only as biased as their profit is, so if it will gain them more profit, they will say it, and repeat it until people believe it as true. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, agricultural corporations started pushing for people to think of healthy as eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and grains, as that is what they mostly produce for human consumption. They pushed this, and now parents all over the developed world encourage their children to eat vegetables, and if they can't get them to do that, then they push for fruit. Brazilian media, since it is a capitalist country, is only concerned about their profit margin.

Development. You got that right. I don't know the numbers, but I'll guess africa must have a high birth rate right now. Development, and not people having kids like rabbits going all nuts in a "Baccarian" festival. More development means more energy, more energy means IMMEDIATELY more people. Check the population growth of the last 200  or so years. There we were, 300 yrs ago, then came coal, that boom in population was huge. Then came oil, mega boom in population growth, really fast this time. The graph for this is "funny".
Africa's current average birth rate sits at around 4 children per woman, or 2 children per person. It is rapidly declining. For example, in 2001, the fertility rate of Angola was 6.75, fast forward ten years, the birth rate is now only 5.31. That is a drop of 1.4 children in 10 years. Meanwhile in Zambia, a nation affected by AIDS, its fertility rate increased from 6.12 to 6.28 during this period. Other nations that were affected with AIDS also dropped, unlike Zambia, such as Zimbabwe: 3.80 to 3.22.
The history of the population of the world is not based on energy, but rather on available calories per person and proper medical care: when the second agricultural revolution came along, which happened to be very closely tied to the early industrial revolution, population began to increase, but not by the great amount that advances in medicine brought, which began to cause death rates to drop. This lead to a natural rise in population, as families continue to produce 5 children or more. While before, usually about 3 of those 5 would die in their early months, this no longer happened. Eventually, women began to realize that they only needed 2 children, and this trend made the birth rates fall. Now, the reason that the population is currently increasing so much is not due to the discovery of oil, as that was discovered about 100 years ago, but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world.

The problem is, these rich elite maggots want to inherit the earth, and are against ANY kind of industrialization whatsoever. The "law" now is deindustrialization, green nut job ideas to create control, and population reduction thru disease, wars, capping of resources and... abortions. This is what you see in the last 40 or so years, and was heavily accentuated in the last 20 years after Gangstah Clinton came along.
These people are against complete industrialization, but they want a little bit so that they can have cheap jobs and other such goodies. Look at what is happening to IT jobs in America. They are all moving to India, as the pay over there is less for the equivalent job. I don't know what world you are living in, but the non-radical green ideas, such as alternative forms of energy, are there to decrease our massive footprint on the planet that would be inevitable if we continued to use non-renewable sources of energy to power ourselves such as coal or natural gas. While we could begin creating coal and burning that, what good would that do? It is a polluting source of energy that causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase as one of its byproducts is unstable CO, which immediately snags oxygen from the atmosphere around it.
If you believe that wars are a major source of keeping populations down, you would be wrong. At least for India and China, respectively, their main source of trying to keep populations down is sterilization of women and the draconian one-child policy. Resource caps simply do not exist, other than the entire universe. Humanity can continue to expand as long as it desires, as long as it develops technologies that can do things such as extract minerals from asteroids, fuse hydrogen for massive amounts of energy, and create new habitable land for humans to settle. Abortions are a very minor part of the decreasing population of many developed countries, and the commonness of abortions is going downwards, against what many media sources in America want to tell you.

Check this graph extracted from This Awesome Piece of Text

While this is mostly accurate, it does not take into account that in developed nations, many women are single or do not decide to have children with a husband. This means that the population will not forever increase, and that in hundreds of years, people will be stretched to do more unless people begin to have slightly more than the "replacement" fertility of 2.1. I also noticed that later in the article, there is a pessimistic chart "explaining" that industrial civilization will collapse within 5 years of that article. It is currently sitting at 2013 and I have seen no horrible things happen which that article predicts.


Whatever these people in their core are for, I'm against it! That's the truth for me.

For abortions? I'm against it!
For wars?  I'm against it!
For state control over consumption of resources?  I'm against it!
For Central banking and fractionally reserve systems?  I'm against it!
For junk foods and frankenfoods?  I'm against it!
For monopolies?  I'm against it!
For Union of nations thru financial systems?  I'm against it!

And so on..
Based on this, I will form an if-then statement: If the media believes something, then unl0cker believes the opposite. I can quickly and easily prove that this is not the case. Do you like Hitler? No. Does the vast majority of media like Hitler? No. Therefore, you are not against everything they believe.

I can also prove this: the media is for the continuation of capitalism, as it is the only way for their sources of profit to continue. If socialism, or some, as Bla would say, "more utopian" economic system was put into play where private corporations did not exist, then the media would no longer have motivation for profit, and they would become more truthful and less biased. For example, America has the news network PBS, which stands for Public Broadcasting Service. They are funded by the people, and then by the government. Their news is impressively unbiased, even if one side is clearly moronic.

Protip: I wrote this in Notepad, only copypasted it back into USForum to post it.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 10:46:14 PM by Darvince »

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Politics
« Reply #377 on: September 07, 2013, 04:36:49 AM »
good idea, so if the internet broke you wouldn't have wasted a lot of time

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #378 on: September 07, 2013, 09:08:21 AM »
Quote
You know what else is life? Bacteria. You know that disinfectant you use? Don't. Because it's killing what life there could be in all those splitting bacteria.

OMG! U'r smart and I'm sure you can do 1000 times better than this one. Comparing a human with his or her 6x trillion cells to a single cell organism is absolutely fail. This was fail Atomic. After all we are talking about our race, not dogs, cats, monkeys or amoebas. Just to be clear, if it is not already, a guy working at a slaughter house MUST have some "difficulties" in slicing a babies throat, but not a cows one, or no difficulties when using deodorant for that matter.

Quote
I don't see how you can't be for state control, when you complain about all the big wig money makers. Resources (the acquiring, and use of) would be managed by the government, not private companies.

You are misled here, I believe is because you have the wrong belief that governments are there to help the populace. This is not the case. Governments are the rich, organizing their control of the wealth and resources. Why is that your parents probably pay more taxes than Ted Tuner, that labeled us as "useless eaters"?! I'll leave you with that.

Quote
1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA.
2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from their surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.
3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.
4. All life forms reproduce.

Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

Making my case sir?!

A coldly call fetus, or unborn LIFE, has the acids, extract energy from it's surroundings (as good as 3 yrs old would do, no arguing with that), they respond INSIDE their mothers to stress, sound, touch, etc, and they ARE able to reproduce, even tho just like with 3 yrs olds, they yet don't posses the proper knowledge to do that.

Nothing changed from our last exchange.

"I can conclude that they are life."  Yes you indeed ARE! Making my case that is.. Thank you.

Quote
... in the late 1970s and early 1980s, agricultural corporations started pushing for people to think of healthy as eating lots of fruits, vegetables, and grains ...

True. And then along came Monsanto. Monopolies are just unfair tuto? Check this company out then. They OWN you. Almost everybody in some sense is Monsanto's slave. If they so decide, they can halt food production and create a caos the world has never seen. Billions of people would die. I see that as live given nutritional enslavement. And nutritional is a joke when thrown in together with the frankenfoods they do produce.

Quote
The history of the population of the world is not based on energy, but rather on available calories per person and proper medical care
Fail. No it is not. Available calories ARE DEPENDENT on ENERGY. No machines to pump water? No calories. No tractors to work the land? No calories. No Trucks to carry the huge loads? No calories. No energy to run hospitals? No medical system. No Oil? No tractors, no water, no transport. No life. 6 billion people in the planet own their lives to oil. This is simple math. Think this through.

Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food. The only answer some will probably come down to is manna. Manna or non existence. Oil gives you life. Oil, "makes" nutrients necessary to have huge farms as was never seen in the ancient world. Oil is OUR society.

"but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world" Media jokes. :-) AIDS in africa. Another bad taste joke. Did you know for example that Bayer intentionally spread this virus in Europe and Asia, and probably Africa as well?!

Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.

Quote
These people are against complete industrialization, but they want a little bit so that they can have cheap jobs and other such goodies.

What I'll tell you is all me,I did not read this anywhere, but I came to this conclusion. I in part agree with you. What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved. So if all major industries are concatenated in one place, all other places will be dependent in that industrialized area to go on. I think, at it's core, money is means to an end. But many think money is the end, so they devote their entire lives at meanings to this end, which in fact, is meaning to and end. Control that is.

If I try to make you knee by force, some day some one will step up and fight me. But if I convince you you own me money, you'll voluntarily put your head down to me, and fall to your knees. Think a lot about this. This is why I hate money! With my knowhow I surely could make at least 20 times more than I currently do, but I refuse that. I hate money and what it means, I use it as was supposed to be used, as a means to exchanged goods necessary to nourish my journey. That's it. I don't need to be a Bill Gates with his 100 Billion dollars. That's only means for controlling, and I need not or have the right to control no one.

Quote
It is a polluting source of energy that causes the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere

Darvi, get out of that box before you suffocate. No IT IS NOT! For this, I present you... the majestic, the megalith, the all powerful mighty SUN. Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 SUCCEEDS heating. More sun energy, more heat, more heat, more co2. This isn't me talking, this is the most renowned and intelligent climatologists speaking. Exactly the ones that had their names put in some wacko list and as much as they ask not to be mentioned, they nevertheless are.  This is why I mentioned Al Gore before, how he manipulated peoples minds using a little trick of sequencial events. CO2 concentrations SUCCEED higher earthly temperatures. So as they say, Sun goes nuts and powerful, that makes oceans and earth heat, that in turn releases co2 present in the oceans. co2 is a product of heat, not the other way around. At least not in our water rich planet.

Quote
It is currently sitting at 2013 and I have seen no horrible things happen which that article predicts.

You're young. Rush not these things... they will happen. It is a chess game, and the checkmate is soon to come. They predict that based on oil supply, but fear not, and worry a lot, the end of oil will be the end of all these humongous  amounts of people. I dare you to steer 20 days of your life away from ALL things that made use oil to exist, including food. You simply can't. But try nevertheless, after all, it will only be 20 days of your hopefully thousands to come, and will give you a wider perspective of the world you live in.

Quote
If the media believes something, then unl0cker believes the opposite

No. Not what I said. You are mixing subjects for your own "cause". You are manipulating my words, just like All Gore manipulated the scientific community words to create "his" heinous agenda 21 control grid.  

The globalists are FOR Hitler. They CREATED Hitler. They financed him. But to make people like yourself oblivion to the truth, their media plays political correctness. After all, and bringing our last political discussion to the surface, no one likes a amoral person, institution, government, rule, etc.

Media IS a whore, it really doesn't mean a whore can sometimes make love instead of sex, if you know what I mean.

I'm gonna tell you how a few can control many. How can 200 "people" dictate the day by day of billions? They don't need to control them all directly. Take Henry Ford for example. He was the only car maker in the beginning. People wanted colorful cars, and he stated "cars can be any color, as long as they are black." Workers in that factory followed their "master's" orders to build black cars, and in turn huge populations had only black cars, despise their wishes to have a colorful one. One person then dictated thru his "system" aka factory the what you gonna get.  

Same goes with governments. It is a pyramidal system, a thousands and thousands of years old pyramidal system of control. Control the head, you'll control the body. Really simple. If this was not true, all coups would fail, as the revolutioners never match the numbers of the peoples they are trying to get control over. Control the head...

The things coming out of the media are mostly garbage, and have the intent to steer you toward the desired direction. But doesn't mean you can't use this garbage, to identify the "gold". If you have a freed mind, the lies will eventually lead you to the truth.

Please, read David Rockefeller memoirs. To the freed eye, it is there, black on white, a literal confession.

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

This was enough for me to incite a huge curiosity around this family. To go and try to unveil the truth about what is behind all this.

Quote
the media is for the continuation of capitalism, as it is the only way for their sources of profit to continue.

Read you own words. How can you trust ME as a sales man, when all I want is to sale at any cost?! The media is there to "TEACH" you HOW to think, WHAT to think, and WHEN you think. Now if you could for a few weeks think the way they don't want you to, you'll rapidly find out that not only you are not thinking enough, but you are thinking about the wrong things.

We are becoming all autistic in a sense. We are smart enough to send men to orbit around the globe, but we are not capable of discerning really simple social situations. That to me is what autism is.

PBS indeed has some good pieces, but is part of the pyramidal system I mentioned, so watch with critical eyes, and not in REM state.

Quote
Protip: I wrote this in Notepad, only copypasted it back into USForum to post it.
Amen brother! Fck the cookies and it's monsters. I've learn now. ;-)

Quote
good idea, so if the internet broke you wouldn't have wasted a lot of time

I see the idea behind net as a censor mechanism. Nothing more. It is here and there is nothing you can do about it. So let's try to use it for OUR means, like we are doing here right now.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 09:59:18 AM by unl0cker »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #379 on: September 07, 2013, 11:17:25 AM »
Quote
Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

I don't really see why we're arguing over whether it's life, it's obviously alive, and it's made out of cells. That's not the point though. I'm pretty sure any unborn animal or anything is life.

Quote
Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food.
idk wait about 50 years and then we'll see?

Quote
Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.
You don't have to disagree with them on every little detail for them to be your enemy.

Quote
What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved.
I believe we're already there, to a point. No one really cares to change anything either.

Quote
Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere.
Says no one qualified to speak on such topics ever. In fact, carbonic acid is now in much higher concentration in the oceans. Carbonic acid is created by water and CO2 interacting, it can do this at room temperature. To give a bit of scale, it's not like CO2 touches water and all of a sudden it's carbonic acid. It probably happens at more the rate water evaporates. It also breaks up and becomes water and CO2. Carbonic acid exists in a state of equilibrium. With this established, it can be deduced with logic, simply that, more CO2 in the atmosphere = more carbonic acid in the oceans at any one time. If CO2 is being released from the oceans by solar energy (which it basically does, causing the equilibrium, but is then quickly replaced, so we're talking about about a net release, more goes out than comes in), then carbonic acid should be less prevalent, but what would stop this released CO2 from entering the ocean again as carbonic acid? Nothing. So in fact, it should stay the same.

CO2 + H2O is in equilibrium with H2CO3

The reality is, the quantity of carbonic acid in the oceans (and thus CO2 in the atmosphere as well) is rising. This should lead one to believe that CO2 is being released elsewhere, not the oceans.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 11:44:55 AM by atomic7732 »

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Politics
« Reply #380 on: September 07, 2013, 11:34:36 AM »
Okay, that post was insanely long, even longer than my post, so I'll only respond to some points.
Fetus, aka baby, aka unborn, aka human LIFE:
1 - Check
2 - Check
3 - Check
4 - Check

Making my case sir?!

A coldly call fetus, or unborn LIFE, has the acids, extract energy from it's surroundings (as good as 3 yrs old would do, no arguing with that), they respond INSIDE their mothers to stress, sound, touch, etc, and they ARE able to reproduce, even tho just like with 3 yrs olds, they yet don't posses the proper knowledge to do that.

Nothing changed from our last exchange.

"I can conclude that they are life."  Yes you indeed ARE! Making my case that is.. Thank you.
Young fetuses (under, say, 15 weeks old) do not fit the third criterion yet as they don't have ANY sensory inforation yet, they just sit inside the mother growing and developing. The difference between how I see it and how you see it is that you see fetuses as immediately being able to feel, see, hear, sense touch, etc. However, they begin as a SINGLE CELL, and bacteria definitely doesn't sense anything in the traditional way we think about it. Well fetuses, as they're animals, don't sense anything until those systems begin to develop, like sight, hearing, smell, touch.

Fail. No it is not. Available calories ARE DEPENDENT on ENERGY. No machines to pump water? No calories. No tractors to work the land? No calories. No Trucks to carry the huge loads? No calories. No energy to run hospitals? No medical system. No Oil? No tractors, no water, no transport. No life. 6 billion people in the planet own their lives to oil. This is simple math. Think this through.
I have thought this through, and I have come to the conclusion that humanity will advance past oil SOON and we will be able to continue our development and improve agricultural output. And yes, the increase of available energy does mark an increase in the ability to add calories per person. We couldn't have done what we are currently doing today 400 years ago when the first steam engine didn't even exist yet to be able to create automation.

Please stage for me a 6 billion people world that has no oil to move the machinery necessary to make all that food. The only answer some will probably come down to is manna. Manna or non existence. Oil gives you life. Oil, "makes" nutrients necessary to have huge farms as was never seen in the ancient world. Oil is OUR society.
While yes, if oil were to run out today, we would be royally fucked, that won't be the case in say, 2030, when other fuels (not ethanol, that stuff eats up corn crops like there's no tomorrow) become the main sources to power cars. I mean, look at current development in different fuels from cars other than gasoline, diesel. They exist, they are just still very expensive and impractical methods, but with some more efficiency, their cost could drop and become available for the average person looking to buy a car. This could be extended to other machinery too, like tractors and pumps. We might not even need to fuel them directly (electric cars), just continue developing non-oil non-coal fuels like solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, fission, and eventually fusion.

"but instead it is due to that proper medicine spread throughout the world" Media jokes. :-) AIDS in africa. Another bad taste joke. Did you know for example that Bayer intentionally spread this virus in Europe and Asia, and probably Africa as well?!

Please please read more about medical industry and it's insanities. Please, I urge you! I'm on YOUR side, not theirs. I'm with YOU, not them. YOU are my brother.. not them. I want YOUR well being, not theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian_immunodeficiency_virus
If Bayer had anything to do with it, then I'm pretty confident that at the very least Wikipedia would have a mention of intentional spreading, although you might think that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, they are a non-profit, encyclopedic source. You also seem to not assume that, like life, viruses can evolve? Also can you please refer me to a source that isn't a .net site with 20 fonts?

What I believe the plan is, is to make everybody dependent. If you depend you are in check, controlled, enslaved. So if all major industries are concatenated in one place, all other places will be dependent in that industrialized area to go on.
If the world became like that, which it is getting closer to due to China manufacturing everything, then other areas would definitely develop industrialization, such as Nigeria, whose prospects for the next 100 years are probably brighter than any other nation in the world.

Darv, get out of that box before you suffocate. No IT IS NOT! For this, I present you... the majestic, the megalith, the all powerful mighty SUN. Sun energy hit's the oceans, and the oceans in turn spell co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 SUCCEEDS heating. More sun energy, more heat, more heat, more co2. This isn't me talking, this is the most renowned and intelligent climatologists speaking. Exactly the ones that had their names put in some wacko list and as much as they ask not to be mentioned, they nevertheless are.  This is why I mentioned Al Gore before, how he manipulated peoples minds using a little trick of sequencial events. CO2 concentrations SUCCEED higher earthly temperatures. So as they say, Sun goes nuts and powerful, that makes oceans and earth heat, that in turn releases co2 present in the oceans. co2 is a product of heat, not the other way around. At least not in our water rich planet.
So you're denying chemical reactions that take place when CO is present in an area? 2 CO + O2 become 2 CO2 rather quickly, which is why you are only worried about CO when you are standing near cars, near factories, in them, where the carbon monoxide didn't react with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2. You can't deny applied chemistry, but you can deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as there is no substantial evidence for that.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Politics
« Reply #381 on: September 07, 2013, 12:00:23 PM »
@above paragraph

where did unlocket imply that chemical reactions take place that co is present in an area?

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Politics
« Reply #382 on: September 07, 2013, 12:10:51 PM »
unlocker is saying that the only source of co2 is evaporation in oceans

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Politics
« Reply #383 on: September 07, 2013, 12:24:56 PM »
the first person to post a debate post with over 2000 chars wins

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #384 on: September 07, 2013, 01:20:02 PM »
Quote
Well fetuses, as they're animals, don't sense anything until those systems begin to develop, like sight, hearing, smell, touch.

I was just waiting for this point to emerge. And it did. There is a fundamental difference between an ameba and a 2 cell "fetus". Altho I expressed the sensory abilities of unborn life, it is not that sensory capabilities that make me defend it, but the fact that is human, human life. That being said,  aborting a 2 cell human organism and aborting a 6 trillion cells one in the end have the same outcome: the termination of human life. And a path for those that racionalize this as quantitative elements or sensorial abilities on a  dangerous road. Is this maybe why God loves the Jewish "race" above all others? Or this is the road to the dehumanization of one's own self?

Quote
I have thought this through

Apparently not.

Quote
and I have come to the conclusion that humanity will advance past oil SOON

This is speculation, my speculation. But I'd say that "we" ARE there already. But the end of oil will  and must serve it's purpose.

You talk about engines agreeing with me, but how about fertilizers? WE NEED THEM to grow these foods. Do they exist in the necessary amounts without oil?

I'll make short and won't quote, but you talk about other ways to produce energy. None of which are viable. None! Solar is unpractical because it would require HUGE fields of panels, and even if build, these panel fields would require heavy and unpractical maintenance. And again, even doing so, the output does not go near the requirement.  Not to mention everybody would have to concatenate themselves in areas of high solar input, tropical areas, high latitude areas would have to be abandoned.

I'll cover what you proposed. But read at the end the conclusion.

Wind is even worse than solar, it requires farms of high tech gear to output small amounts of energy. These wind turbines have proven to be a failure because the maintenance difficulties that are required.

Hydroelectric is one actual only one  that can "look" eye to eye to oil. But these are limited to geographical areas where water runs abundant and in large quantities. Very few places around the globe have such conditions.  

Geothermal are pure fiction so far. It is a valid idea, but I don't think no one is crazy to tap into this without knowing for certain what the outcome of drilling huge holes into the earths crust will be.

Fission is another good candidate. But you know what that means.

And finally fusion. Well fusion, meat Einstein. Fusion Einstein, Einstein fusion. By the time we abandon Einsteins ideas and "rules", well I guess we would be ready to live wherever we want, including a spaceship in some distant galaxy.

The problem of our current world and oil is this. Oil means more than just gasoline and diesel. The following products would not be possible without oil:

- Fertilizers
- Plastics
- Solvents
- Cortisone
- Vitamin Capsules
- Rubber
- Most Oils
- Movie films
- Glycerin
- Epoxies
- Aspirin
- Antihistamines
- Food Preservatives
- Nylon
- Many cleaning products
- Electronics
- Refrigerants
- Antiseptics
- Antifreeze
- Ammonia
- CONDOMS!
- Candles

And the list goes on and on and on to the oblivion of our minds. WE ARE A OIL WORLD.

Everything is basically oil made, or dependent on it to be made. So you see, the fight for oil, is not merely a fight for the energy market, but a fight for a huge chunk of our todays world.

You know the medical advances you mentioned earlier? Wouldn't be possible without oil. So, oil is all to our way of life as it is.

IT IS in fact the major player of population growth. No oil? Much caos, and much death.

Quote
If Bayer had anything to do with it, then I'm pretty confident that at the very least Wikipedia would have a mention of intentional spreading, although you might think that Wikipedia isn't to be trusted, they are a non-profit, encyclopedic source. You also seem to not assume that, like life, viruses can evolve? Also can you please refer me to a source that isn't a .net site with 20 fonts?

Please, READ CAREFULLY what I wrote, and try not to fill the blanks. If I left a blank is probably because I do not know the answer to that. ===>>> Also refrain from using wikipedia, as the info provided is junked.  <<<===

Use scientific papers and the works of people that have studied what you are looking for. And even with that, BE CRITICAL about it. Just because someone is intelligent  does not mean they can't also be biased. Measure, think about what you read. Just like the way you are doing with me now. Do the same with ALL info you acquire.

I did not said bayer CREATED the virus. I have my doubts tho, I really do. After all, people always fornicated with all kinds animals, and nothing of this sorts ever occurred. And soon after we learn what a DNA is, a lot of shit starts to happening. Pretty "weird" if you ask me, but I have no grounds to stand on to that.

Now, you are simply replying from the top of your head. Do your homework. If Bayer says they are guilt on this, who's gonna say they are not? Why are they paying money to people that got infected then?

Research this and the TRUTH WILL MOSTLY AND CERTAINLY SET YOU FREE. Free from bullshit. Free from dominance. Free from manipulation. You are your own master, don't ever let other rule you thru lies, deceit or any other means.


Quote
.. then other areas would definitely develop industrialization

No man, they won't. You know why? And this happens now, here in Brazil. I mean, stop, and think of BRAZIL. WTF. This nation sits in the most powerful place in the world man. Here.

We have it ALL. Gold? Yes a lot. Wood? Yes a lot! Farm land? Yes more almost all. All kinds of minerals? YESSSS. Oil? Oh yeah baby. Ethanol? Oh we do too! Everything. We do have Everything. Brazil is one of few nations that can be totally independent.

And where we are? Nowhere! Why? Because the government taxes people to Pluto. They tax us heavily on EVERY aspect of our lives. Which btw is the purpose of taxes, to take from the people, to keep them in check.

No one will develop anymore. This - will - not - happening.  You mentioned 2030. When I was young, 20 or even 10 yrs for me was like eternity. Now I see differently. 20 yrs is a nap. 2030 is right there around the corner. Nothing will change that much in so little time, unless something magical happens. Like the magic of oil before.

Quote
Says no one qualified to speak on such topics ever.
Hmmm not entirely. Not I'm a chemistry guy. In fact never was, I've find these to be boring. So I trust the experts. The scientists. Which btw doesn't mean I can't start now, and became a very smart chemically speaking guy in bout 5 yrs or so.

Please watch this piece:

The great global warming swindle - Full version

And don't forget to read the titles each of these persons have, as well as their names, so you can go deeper into their own papers on the subject.

Wanna know what I think my karma is (considering that does exists)? I can smell bullshit from miles and miles away. That's  like a curse to me. :/ But if I had to choose peace or bliss, I'd take truth Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday, AND Sunday too.

Quote
idk wait about 50 years and then we'll see?

I sadly won't be here to help, but you probably will. Try to do your best to help people if this comes true.

Whata mess I did in this reply... mixing peoples quotes and the sequence of things. I hope you guys don't mind I leaving this text like this. After all you'all are smarter than me, and I don't say this out of sarcasm. Like I said before, at your ages, I barely could pronounce the world weather, let alone mean what it is.

To finish this:

Quote
So you're denying chemical reactions that take place when CO is present in an area

No I'm not. What I'm saying is CO2 is NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. This is what I'm saying.
I also I'M NOT SAYING CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. BUT I DO SAY NOW, that water vapor for example, heats more the globe than CO2 does. I also say now that man made CO2 is not affecting the planet's weather. Watch the video above and take your own conclusions. Or even go above and beyond and research these peoples papers, thing I did not, mainly because I smelled crap in this pseudoscience called global warming. Knowing it was crap was enough for me. I did not wanted to understand the "engines" behind the story.


unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #385 on: September 07, 2013, 01:20:53 PM »
the first person to post a debate post with over 2000 chars wins

No one wins...

A twitter mind will make you dumb. :(

unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #386 on: September 07, 2013, 01:21:48 PM »
Quote
unlocker is saying that the only source of co2 is evaporation in oceans

No.. no no no no. No... nooooooooooooo.  NOT WHAT I SAID!

Bla

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • The stars died so you can live.
Re: Politics
« Reply #387 on: September 07, 2013, 01:37:54 PM »
you can deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as there is no substantial evidence for that.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
(Nice source)

Anyway, not only is there clear evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, there is actually very solid evidence that CO2 is also a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. The evidence is extremely simple: Its absorbtion spectrum.

On this chart, the red line is the radiation of the Sun, which enters the atmosphere. The red area is the radiation which passes through the atmosphere to ground level. There it is reflected (or absorbed), and the blue graph is the radiation which goes back up through the atmosphere. The blue area is the radiation which actually exits the atmosphere.

The major components graphs show which wavelengths of radiation the different gases absorb. You can see that CO2 is responsible for a part of this absorbtion. When the radiation is absorbed, it results in increased temperature. The total amount of radiation absorbed divided by the total amount of incoming radiation is Earth's albedo, the higher albedo, the higher the temperature will be, and CO2 is responsible for inreasing the albedo.


unl0cker

  • *****
  • Posts: 192
Re: Politics
« Reply #388 on: September 07, 2013, 01:56:55 PM »
This goes way beyond any of our knewlodge. No one here is qualified to talk about this. So, I wouldn't exchange the word of these people (that after stating these facts are getting no financing whatsoever:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center

John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and a Lead Author of Chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report

Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen

Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.

Patrick Michaels – Research Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace

Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Roy Spencer – Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Carl Wunsch – Professor, Department of Oceanography, M.I.T.

Bert Bolin - He was professor of meteorology at Stockholm University for 30 years

for the word of (that are having money pumped into their pieces by the tens of millions:

Seth Bornstein, BBC Weather, University of Maryland News Desk, Hadley Centre for Climate change, and others unknown cheaters.


This is politicians playing politics on people. This is what I see.


atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Politics
« Reply #389 on: September 07, 2013, 01:58:10 PM »
@Bla

Science!

Quote
And the list goes on and on and on to the oblivion of our minds. WE ARE A OIL WORLD.
So maybe if we stopped using it as a fuel and wasting it...

Why exactly would a movement saying CO2 causes global warming be made by the people who make money off of being able to use it to excess?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 02:06:58 PM by atomic7732 »