Possible world wide revolution?

More
06 Dec 2018 15:28 #330204 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Uzima Moto wrote: The point of this thread was to come up with solutions to these OBVIOUS problems..


Not so obvious if you are a member of a fringe society such as yourself that disagrees with the rest of the world including the leading experts in these areas that have trained in their discipline for decades.


Uzima Moto wrote: Everybody isn't going to join you in the dark though.


Oh good, its crowded enough in here already…


Uzima Moto wrote: The only people who could marginalize me by force is the Council itself.. thankfully, you're NOWHERE near that..


By force? Who said anything about force? To escalate things in this way by claiming individuals threatened you with force is a paranoid stance there is no evidence for.


Uzima Moto wrote: What I won't acknowledge is the outright attack of people's ideas.


That’s fine but not acknowledging them wont make them or the truth they represent go away.



Uzima Moto wrote: Just like how Chemtrails were a "cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY" until they're not because we can use them to combat "gLoBaL WaRmInG"


That is not the sort of “chem trail” we have been talking about and you know it. You are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation here.



Uzima Moto wrote: What I propose is a decentralization of Power, Wealth, and Force.. that is the real good and righteous work I am committed to.. Decentralization will empower the masses into prosperity


Your proposal is one created out of your ignorance of the subject matter. The only thing your proposal will create is a society where two wolves and a sheep will be voting on whats for dinner.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Dec 2018 15:19 #330260 by Uzima Moto

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Climate change is propaganda..

It is. Climate science is a profoundly important topic and reveals very urgent issues that people, whether they are themselves powerful or only voting for others to be, need to be well informed on. That's why there is so much of a push to propagate this information as far as it'll go. To not propagandize it could be argued to be a literal crime against humanity, just as spreading lies about it could.


I mean propaganda in the *derogatory* sense of the term.

*DEROGATORY*
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The special interest groups behind this hysteria are pushing misleading information. Its success lies in its "appeal to authority".

"DoNt BeLiEvE jUsT OnE eXpErT. BeLiEvE a HuNdReD." As if they couldn't be bullied or money-rolled into peddling misleading information. The idea though that human activity alone is the source of these "climate issues" is absurd to begin with..

Spiritual Light is real, existing within us and in nature(outside us).. Darkness is the ugly void..

What does that even mean? And once that is cleared up, how do you know?


Spirit is real, it's fullness and light(substance and energy), it's natural and supernatural (manifesting as and beyond things within our material perception), and it makes up every that exists. It is One substance, manifesting in a trillion different ways.. Darkness is the opposite, void. Where there is no substance, no energy, and, by consequence, no Life..


Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Yabuturtle

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Dec 2018 19:08 - 07 Dec 2018 19:08 #330274 by Gisteron

Uzima Moto wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Climate change is propaganda..

It is. Climate science is a profoundly important topic and reveals very urgent issues that people, whether they are themselves powerful or only voting for others to be, need to be well informed on. That's why there is so much of a push to propagate this information as far as it'll go. To not propagandize it could be argued to be a literal crime against humanity, just as spreading lies about it could.


I mean propaganda in the *derogatory* sense of the term.

*DEROGATORY*
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The special interest groups behind this hysteria are pushing misleading information. Its success lies in its "appeal to authority".

"DoNt BeLiEvE jUsT OnE eXpErT. BeLiEvE a HuNdReD." As if they couldn't be bullied or money-rolled into peddling misleading information. The idea though that human activity alone is the source of these "climate issues" is absurd to begin with..

I'll be delighted to review your meteorological and geological data recordings from all over the world for the past centuries and read the theory you publish that accounts for specifics of their general behaviour and recent trends. Please, do let me know when you have something.


Spiritual Light is real, existing within us and in nature(outside us).. Darkness is the ugly void..

What does that even mean? And once that is cleared up, how do you know?


Spirit is real, it's fullness and light(substance and energy), it's natural and supernatural (manifesting as and beyond things within our material perception), and it makes up every that exists. It is One substance, manifesting in a trillion different ways.. Darkness is the opposite, void. Where there is no substance, no energy, and, by consequence, no Life..

You gotta finish that sentence. Where there is none of those things... what's up there?
Anyway, I thought that you quoting my query would introduce you attempting to answer it. Instead you babbled more vague to meaningless gibberish. So I shall repeat myself also. What does any of that mean, and how do you know that you are talking about something remotely real here?

Last edit: 07 Dec 2018 19:08 by Gisteron.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kyrin Wyldstar

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 01:36 #330483 by Uzima Moto
I'll come up with a report after you. Until then, I'm going to side with the skeptics on this topic. Since many of them are a part of the scientific community people say has come to an unquestionable conclusion..

So just on its face it SOUNDS like propaganda..

Also, I'm not about to type a dissertation here. I said it as simply as it could be said. You just want some deep, complicated explanation when there isn't one. You're not going to get any material quantification of things that are immaterial. You're going to have to go beyond your normal senses.. If you read that last sentence correctly. You would see where it's complete. No Life being the end result.. That is Darkness, the void..

You and Kyrin deliberately misconstrue the arguments when it serves your purposes. Just like she thinks I meant chemtrails as more than geoengineering. However, I've only connected them with weather modification. Doing so on more than one occasion. You keep saying I speak gibberish just because it's not in the format most acceptable for your consumption..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 09:43 #330514 by Uzima Moto

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

The point of this thread was to come up with solutions to these OBVIOUS problems..


Not so obvious if you are a member of a fringe society such as yourself that disagrees with the rest of the world including the leading experts in these areas that have trained in their discipline for decades.


And when those scientists refuse to disclose the process by which they came to their conclusions. Because of the fear that someone may scrutinize it and find flaws. They expose themselves to criticism and rightfully so..


Uzima Moto wrote: The only people who could marginalize me by force is the Council itself.. thankfully, you're NOWHERE near that..


By force? Who said anything about force? To escalate things in this way by claiming individuals threatened you with force is a paranoid stance there is no evidence for.


I didn't claim that anyone threatened me with force. I'm letting you know that short of force. I can't be marginalized to a corner. Out of good conscience of course. I can't let sheep-like utopianism thinking take over this movement..

Uzima Moto wrote: What I won't acknowledge is the outright attack of people's ideas.


That’s fine but not acknowledging them wont make them or the truth they represent go away.


Truth? Where? Lmbo, sounds more like conjecture..

Uzima Moto wrote: Just like how Chemtrails were a "cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrY" until they're not because we can use them to combat "gLoBaL WaRmInG"


That is not the sort of “chem trail” we have been talking about and you know it. You are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation here.


Idk what chemtrails YOU'VE been talking about. The only reference I made to them was in regards to weather modification. You just want to associate me with the media's purposeful misconception of Chemtrail Theories..

What I propose is a decentralization of Power, Wealth, and Force.. that is the real good and righteous work I am committed to.. Decentralization will empower the masses into prosperity


Your proposal is one created out of your ignorance of the subject matter. The only thing your proposal will create is a society where two wolves and a sheep will be voting on whats for dinner.


You don't even know what exactly I'm proposing to make that statement. Somehow though, I doubt that decentralizing power would lead to regional warlords. The ENTIRE constitutional system of The States is based on decentralization of Power. So I don't see how you did the logical gymnastics to get less corruptible power equals more corruption..

Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem
By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 16:06 - 10 Dec 2018 16:09 #330536 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Uzima Moto wrote: And when those scientists refuse to disclose the process by which they came to their conclusions. Because of the fear that someone may scrutinize it and find flaws. They expose themselves to criticism and rightfully so..


What? Wow, that’s actually the opposite of how science works. Scientists don’t refuse to disclose processes, they actually publish process so others can test those processes and peer review them to verify results. Peer review uses the very mechanism of criticism. I don’t know where you got this insane idea that it does not work this way but it’s just wrong.



Uzima Moto wrote: Idk what chemtrails YOU'VE been talking about. The only reference I made to them was in regards to weather modification. You just want to associate me with the media's purposeful misconception of Chemtrail Theories.


You’re still back pedaling furiously. Why would you mention a perfectly open and well known process and then imply it’s part of a conspiracy in a conspiracy thread if you were never referring to the conspiracy you imply? It is not the media that is misrepresenting itself. It is you.




Uzima Moto wrote: You don't even know what exactly I'm proposing to make that statement. Somehow though, I doubt that decentralizing power would lead to regional warlords. The ENTIRE constitutional system of The States is based on decentralization of Power. So I don't see how you did the logical gymnastics to get less corruptible power equals more corruption..



You contradict yourself here. If the US constitution is one that is designed to decentralize power then what are you complaining about. The US already has the system in operation that you are proposing, right? The US is a representative republic under a semi-free market capitalist economy. Of course this system is not perfect just like any other. No system will function perfectly in practice but over the millennia of tried systems it has proven itself to be the most successful form of govt ever created. In the end you can’t have fascist regimes but you can’t have anarchy either. You need a balance.

Now if you’re talking about the constant shift of balance back and forth you are right. Things have shifted a bit more towards big govt over the last 8 years under Obama. Trump is now fixing that shift by opening up economies and deregulating things that have been over regulated. Rebuilding trade deals in our favor and lowering taxes for businesses that will create new jobs and spurred the economy into greater action and well as, has attacked Obamacare in efforts to put the control over our health back in the hands of the individual. I think things are looking up!

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 10 Dec 2018 16:09 by Kyrin Wyldstar.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Silvermane, OB1Shinobi, Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 16:33 - 10 Dec 2018 17:44 #330540 by Zenchi

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: And when those scientists refuse to disclose the process by which they came to their conclusions. Because of the fear that someone may scrutinize it and find flaws. They expose themselves to criticism and rightfully so..


What? Wow, that’s actually the opposite of how science works. Scientists don’t refuse to disclose processes, they actually publish process so others can test those processes and peer review them to verify results. Peer review uses the very mechanism of criticism. I don’t know where you got this insane idea that it does not work this way but it’s just wrong.


He's actually got a point...

Graham Hancock (not a scientist himself) and a host of archeologists and scientists alike have in Joe Rogan's podcast, many times over, remarked how judgmental and vicious the process for submitting new evidence (for example disproving old theories concerning mankind's history as we now know it) before the scientific community at large can be...

Why is this, think about it this way. The text books we hand out to students in our schools, their filled with knowledge and data, and not all of it accurate, only what we "know" to be true and "accepted" at the time of its writing. Entire careers are at stake, when one individuals hypothesis turned theory was, years later turned out to be inaccurate simply because of new data provided. Most would take it personally, (shouldn't being they're scientists in search for truth, right?) but many do...

As of right now, all digging around the Sphinx in Egypt has been shut down. Why? I'll tell you why, because evidence is slowly coming out that contradicts what we think we know about civilization in that area for thousands of years. The careers and "legacies" of a few are at risk...

It's unfortunate how people have to die for progress to occur and the truth to come out. Scientists are human, and are prone to corruption...

My word is my Honor, and my Honor is my life ~ Sturm Brightblade

Sith ain't sinners, Jedi ain't saints ~ Jestor


Apprentices: Arisaig Avalon
TM- RyuJin
Last edit: 10 Dec 2018 17:44 by Zenchi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Silvermane, OB1Shinobi, Kobos, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 17:47 #330546 by Carlos.Martinez3

Zenchi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: And when those scientists refuse to disclose the process by which they came to their conclusions. Because of the fear that someone may scrutinize it and find flaws. They expose themselves to criticism and rightfully so..


What? Wow, that’s actually the opposite of how science works. Scientists don’t refuse to disclose processes, they actually publish process so others can test those processes and peer review them to verify results. Peer review uses the very mechanism of criticism. I don’t know where you got this insane idea that it does not work this way but it’s just wrong.


He's actually got a point...

Graham Hancock (not a scientist himself) and a host of archeologists and scientists alike have in Joe Rogan's podcast, many times over, remarked how judgmental and vicious the process for submitting new evidence (for example disproving old theories concerning mankind's history as we now know it) before the scientific community at large can be...

Why is this, think about it this way. The text books we hand out to students in our schools, their filled with knowledge and data, and not all of it accurate, only what we "know" to be true and "accepted" at the time of its writing. Entire careers are at stake, when one individuals hypothesis turned theory was, years later turned out to be inaccurate simply because of new data provided. Most would take it personally, (shouldn't being their scientists in search for truth, right?) but many do...

As of right now, all digging around the Sphinx in Egypt has been shut down. Why? I'll tell you why, because evidence is slowly coming out that contradicts what we think we know about civilization in that area for thousands of years. The careers and "legacies" of a few are at risk...

It's unfortunate how people have to die for progress to occur and the truth to come out. Scientists are human, and are prone to corruption...


This is too true. Imagine our medical treatment from let’s say the last war we had to the first civil war - two entirely different times and difrent - way different diagnoses and remedys. How far we have come as far as medicine and that’s just medicine. It IS unfortunate the sacrifice often times made for the sake of many. But what a gift we get ...

Contact The Clergy
Assoc. Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 18:33 - 10 Dec 2018 18:39 #330557 by OB1Shinobi

Zenchi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: And when those scientists refuse to disclose the process by which they came to their conclusions. Because of the fear that someone may scrutinize it and find flaws. They expose themselves to criticism and rightfully so..


What? Wow, that’s actually the opposite of how science works. Scientists don’t refuse to disclose processes, they actually publish process so others can test those processes and peer review them to verify results. Peer review uses the very mechanism of criticism. I don’t know where you got this insane idea that it does not work this way but it’s just wrong.


He's actually got a point...

Graham Hancock (not a scientist himself) and a host of archeologists and scientists alike have in Joe Rogan's podcast, many times over, remarked how judgmental and vicious the process for submitting new evidence (for example disproving old theories concerning mankind's history as we now know it) before the scientific community at large can be...

Why is this, think about it this way. The text books we hand out to students in our schools, their filled with knowledge and data, and not all of it accurate, only what we "know" to be true and "accepted" at the time of its writing. Entire careers are at stake, when one individuals hypothesis turned theory was, years later turned out to be inaccurate simply because of new data provided. Most would take it personally, (shouldn't being they're scientists in search for truth, right?) but many do...

As of right now, all digging around the Sphinx in Egypt has been shut down. Why? I'll tell you why, because evidence is slowly coming out that contradicts what we think we know about civilization in that area for thousands of years. The careers and "legacies" of a few are at risk...

It's unfortunate how people have to die for progress to occur and the truth to come out. Scientists are human, and are prone to corruption...



I see what youre saying here Zenchi and i think actually your point and Kyrins point are not incompatible. Much like capitalism, the scientific process is supposed to work a specific way but human flaws result in certain...hiccups.... malfunctions, perhaps? Yet even with the malfunctions, the scientific method is - or at least seems, logically - to be the most reliable process humanity has yet developed for producing a relaible base of knowledge. The process itself is superior even though its actual implementation goes awry sometimes. Also like capitalism, i think this is more an issue of vigilance to moniter and update the system that we have rather than scrapping it altogether.

"One should respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond that is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways"
-Lord Russel
Last edit: 10 Dec 2018 18:39 by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Dec 2018 19:07 #330564 by Gisteron
Bear in mind that exactly zero technologies have been developed as a result of anyone's models of history. The only thing at stake in that entire subject are the careers and social influence of the individuals within it. While pseudoscientific quacks like Hancock love to exaggerate just how strongly personal biases control research progress in areas like history, it is not entirely implausible that it would nevertheless be a greater problem than in fields that actually matter to the everyday lives of the public at large, like medicine and by extension all of the biology, chemistry and ultimately physics that goes into it.

Oh, and for the record, even when nothing is wrong with your research or contradictory to any "paradigm" anti-science folks like to think science works within (what ever they mean by that), there is still every chance of a referee recommending against your paper's publication on the grounds of it not being novel enough or interesting enough, and that's assuming that it even gets past the editor. There is any number of woosters whining and complaining about how difficult it is for them to publish their alternative history, or alternative psychology, or philosophy, meanwhile chugging out books about it for the selling. If that's the amount of rigor that already makes them weep loud and wide into the public, I dare not picture how they'd handle peer review in the natural sciences.

The following user(s) said Thank You: Kobos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.