41

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is there a gas that will stop people arguing?

« on: 31/01/2017 20:54:54 »

That's equivalent to drugging people against their will in order to force them to behave in a way that you deem acceptable. I have a real problem with such ideas myself.

I agree. It is criminal to drug people without their clear consent and awareness.

I am heartened to hear people say this- you are completly correct, it is utterly criminal to drug people in such a manner; sadly the security services, and those that control them, do not seem to agree, easy to do and hard to prove. I have often protested this issue and pointed out that China has re-education centers which the west denounces and yet the west has mental hospitals performing the very same function- thanks to drug inducement.

p.s yes and they are not listening to all your conversations either.

   

42

Just Chat! / Re: Why is the EU such an emotional topic in the UK?

« on: 29/06/2016 15:20:01 »

Ah, I forgot about the Channel Islands. I also sometime forget about the Japanese invasion and occupation of Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

Britian has been invaded many times since 1066

 Henry Bolingbroke on 4 July 1399, landed with a small force at Ravenspur.[53] From there, he marched into the Lancastrian heartlands of Yorkshire, building his forces. At Bridlington, he was joined by the Earl of Northumberland and his son Henry Percy. The army marched southwards and on 20 July reached Leicester. Meanwhile, Richard's regent, Edmund, Duke of York had raised an army and was in Hertfordshire.The Duke of York had little desire to fight, however, and detaching himself from the army, met Henry at Berkeley Castle on 27 July.


In exile in Brittany, Henry Tudor, a distant relation of the Lancastrians, gathered a small, mainly mercenary army and mounted an invasion of Wales in 1485. Welshmen, Lancastrians, and disaffected Yorkists rallied behind Tudor, whose forces encountered Richard and the royal army at Bosworth Field on August 22. Richard was killed during the fighting, and his forces lost the battle

The pretender Perkin Warbeck made three attempts to invade England. The first, on 3 July 1495, occurred at Deal. Warbeck had arrived on a fleet of ships provided by Maximillian I. An advanced force of supporters and Flemish mercenaries was put ashore to attempt to raise local rebellion. Local forces however, defeated the landing party, killing 150 and capturing 163.[58] Warbeck himself did not land.

The second invasion came in September 1496. Warbeck had been received in Scotland in January 1496 and James IV supported him in an invasion of England later in the year. Unfortunately for the invaders, there was again no local support for Warbeck and the invaders soon returned across the border.

The third, and most successful, invasion took place in Cornwall in September 1497. In May and June 1497, there had been a revolt against Henry VII in Cornwall. This had been suppressed following the rebels' defeat at Blackheath. However, there was still sufficient dissatisfaction that when Warbeck arrived with a small force, he was accepted by many locals as Richard IV and soon raised a force of up to 8,000 rebels.[58] With this army, he besieged Exeter.

In 1688 the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau landed an army in Devon at the invitation of a group of Protestant nobles who were dissatisfied with what they perceived as the absolutist tendencies of the reigning Catholic King James II. After a brief campaign culminating in the Battle of Reading, William's army successfully forced James into exile in France.

There are many other examples of invasions of Britian, the Spainish did actually invade for a small time they Pillaged a few towns and decided to leave and come back with a Bigger force, but never did.

43

Just Chat! / Re: There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?

« on: 29/06/2016 15:03:38 »

There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet?

A modern day Evangelist doing to others what he despises in them, forcing his beliefs down their throats a prime example of a hypocrite, what is he trying to achieve? He should go home and spend valuable time with his family and grandchildren, instead of going all over the world, convincing the already converted, who already are atheists like him.

this is incorrect, Darwkins is not an Athiest, he is an Anti-Thiest, he has in the past actively called for Militant Athieisms. He actively seeks the destruction of Religion, in his own words he Despises God.

To Quote Orwell

"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him."

"In a billion years he will never get a fundamentalist to convert to his belief, what a huge waste of time and effort"

He does make fools of the religious fundamentalists, "but how easy is that"?,

Very easy, most regular religious people joke about them also. Like many scientist Darkins is more interested in Fame And with the Selfish Gene as an Idea, it has caused nothing but trouble in the Free Market but it made Dawkins Famous and thats whats important.

to make fools of those ignorant in basic science, but being ignorant does not mean they are stupid, they just do not know things he knows.

As a scientist he should know he simply cannot prove that god does not exist, so until he can he should go home and shut up and stop irritating people .

I do not see a scientist when I see Dawkins, just and Anrgy man that wants to be Rich and Famous.

He is in his 70,s and has just had a stroke, so maybe he should reconsider his position as far as the existence of god goes and the possibility that there just might be an afterlife?

Alan

He´s too Proud for that, even if God appeared to him he´d probably die denying it ever happened.

44

Just Chat! / Re: How do you perceive God? (God of my understanding thread)

« on: 02/06/2016 22:37:50 »

Interestingly I'll probably annoy you more and get biblical.  

So God from the Bible is existence. "He exists" and always did hence at the end of the infinite chain- there has to be an orginal source, that was not created.

As Jews Pray everyday 'God is one', unity, also love, as love and one are the same thing in Hebrew, ofcourse that's what love means in Hebrew, to love is to be one, you'll need to forget the selfish "love" the west thinks about or the loves of the greeks which had four different types of love yet none of them really relate to the concrete unity of the Hebrew, expressed through realtionship- 

As Jesus expressed John 17.21 "I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you." 

Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words when used outside of their respective contexts. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are as follows:

    Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means "love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."[2] Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast.[3] Agape is used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God for his children.[4] This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."[5]
    Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion."[6] The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love." Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has Socrates argue that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal "Form" of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire – thus suggesting that even that sensually based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence.[7] Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.
    Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals."[8] It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle.[9] In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends (specifically, "brotherly love"), family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
    Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children"[10] It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring.[11] Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant. This is also used when referencing the love for ones country or a favorite sports team.
 

So when  you think about it from a biblical prespective all people have the breath of god within them, gods breath also causes the trees and grass to grow or wither. In this sense you could say that god is life itself, god is existence from whom all life is sustained.

Wisdom 11.24 24 Yes, you love everything that exists, and nothing that you have made disgusts you, since, if you had hated something, you would not have made it.
25 And how could a thing subsist, had you not willed it? Or how be preserved, if not called forth by you?
26 No, you spare all, since all is yours, Lord, lover of life!

Why are you bringing philosophy into this thread when it has nothing to do with what I experienced that night in 2011?

I wasnt relating to what happened to you merely answering the question of the thread: How do you perceive God?

So it is only in the Bible, which I have read as a Christian for over 45 years can one express the attributes of Almighty God, his creative work and his origin?

You'll have to rephrase the question

God love does not extend for instance to child pedophilia sex abusers and perverts, Ultimately everyone that has ever lived with stand before Almighty God at the great Judgement seat and account for every action of inaction done in this life.

Interesting doctrine. Interesting you feel that you can say where gods love starts and ends and for whom, is it not written there will be more rejoicing over one repentant sinner then for the faithful?

"Not all people have God Spirit within them", our bodies are the Temple of God" and God will not dwell in the heart/temple of those who hate him!

All people have the breath of god, gods light dwells in all men, many cant see it through blockages that prevent them, yet it is there- we would not live without it.  All men are made a filled with a shaddow of the image of God, gods likeness dwells in all of us.

I know what agapa means, it would not extend to the likes of depraved despots like Hitler (Sorry for using Hitler but he is a perfect example of a Evil person worthy of judgement) 

I am extremely informed on all things philosophical and have read for instance Plato's Republic so please stop assuming that I am ignorant!

I fail to see the need to write this, although this is a theological not philosophical discussion.

God is the source of life as far as a human being is concerned we are not just atoms in a huge consciousness or ocean we call God. We are all uniquely made by God and he has given each of us a subjective conscious reality of self, separate from him, but also intrinsically eternal like him.

Sensual pleasure  experienced with another beings is one of the greatest gifts God has ever given to mankind and this extends into the afterlife in a much more intense, sustainable way that one can imagine from the perceptive of our human bodies.

Nothing I wrote is my essay conflicts with Biblical Scripture?

Did I suggest otherwise? Like I said I merely answered the question and gave my perspective.

45

Just Chat! / Re: How do you perceive God? (God of my understanding thread)

« on: 02/06/2016 01:43:20 »

Interestingly I'll probably annoy you more and get biblical.  

So God from the Bible is existence. "He exists" and always did hence at the end of the infinite chain- there has to be an orginal source, that was not created.

As Jews Pray everyday 'God is one', unity, also love, as love and one are the same thing in Hebrew, ofcourse that's what love means in Hebrew, to love is to be one, you'll need to forget the selfish "love" the west thinks about or the loves of the greeks which had four different types of love yet none of them really relate to the concrete unity of the Hebrew, expressed through realtionship- 

As Jesus expressed John 17.21 "I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father, and I am in you." 

Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words when used outside of their respective contexts. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are as follows:

    Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē[1]) means "love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God."[2] Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast.[3] Agape is used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God for his children.[4] This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."[5]
    Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion."[6] The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love." Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has Socrates argue that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal "Form" of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire – thus suggesting that even that sensually based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence.[7] Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.
    Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals."[8] It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle.[9] In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends (specifically, "brotherly love"), family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
    Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children"[10] It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring.[11] Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant. This is also used when referencing the love for ones country or a favorite sports team.
 

So when  you think about it from a biblical prespective all people have the breath of god within them, gods breath also causes the trees and grass to grow or wither. In this sense you could say that god is life itself, god is existence from whom all life is sustained.

Wisdom 11.24 24 Yes, you love everything that exists, and nothing that you have made disgusts you, since, if you had hated something, you would not have made it.
25 And how could a thing subsist, had you not willed it? Or how be preserved, if not called forth by you?
26 No, you spare all, since all is yours, Lord, lover of life!

46

Just Chat! / Re: Conflict resolution with LGBT and religious on marriage in government?

« on: 02/06/2016 00:59:28 »

Jolly, don't you think it is worth maintaining freedom of speech and the right to vote and stand in parliament, if you are a born citizen?

Nice idea but you dont actually have freedom of speach, if you did the state and security services would protect you if you spoke your mind, they certainly do not do that at the moment. Voting for one person to represent you has to be one of the worst forms of democracy, they lie to get in and when they do they go against everything they said they would do, and rarely get called up on it. Right to stand is interesting, politicians are vetted today by the system- no zelots allowed apparently. and really what does it matter to vote when the politicians have no power or ability to really change things, a vote for someone that can really do nothing is a rather worthless vote, and the longer this process goes on the worse it's going to get, from party to party leader to leader no matter who you vote for they all follow the same agenda, an agenda decided by the Market, not the politicians themselves and certianly not by the people.   

I see no point in trying to preserve the status quo, we really have no democracy, or freedom of speach.

For science, debates with sides and free speech is important!
For policy writing and campaigning once again, it is vital.

There are highier powers taking care of that, politicians just manage, for the corporates and bankers, all their advisers work for the bankers and corporates. Important to understand whats happened since Thatcher, she put the business community in charge and put politics on the back seat, we the people at Mc-country can vote to change the manager, but the not the real rulers and decision makers. 

If a person can restrain others' speech, he can gain too much power.

If the people actually understood what was going on, there would be a massive social breakdown, you can and speak, then you'll pay the price, quietly in private- so no one notices. Wake up to what negative freedom as a system really is- it's a control system.

Mass survielence which Britian is the worst at, was going on long before 9/11 and has little to do with terrorism, you can't control a society without it.

The press led by one person, in regards to one company can begin to persuade and monopolize and dictate. Going beyond influencing 5% in close elections. Media magnates can be greedy, conservative, austere, gun ho...

In America five companies now controll all the media, and they colude.

I want my democracy. I want to retain constitutional monarchism.

You do not live in a democracy, the politicians will say you do, but you have to understand when politicians say 'Democracy' they mean that business are in power, not the people have influence over elected officals.
Business rules and you vote for business' when you shop with them, the "Elected" Business then tell the elected politician managers what they want, and their advisers advise, "continous democracy" as it has been called.

We'll ignore how the rich get more votes and how some companies the people never engage with so get no vote over, and how some companies are too big to fail so the people are not allowed to get rid of them even if they wanted to, and how being good at making a product or service really is no qulification for power over society. The closer you look at things the more lies you see, but maintaining illusions is part of the system. 

47

Just Chat! / Re: Conflict resolution with LGBT and religious on marriage in government?

« on: 29/05/2016 00:35:02 »

We do not live in a democracy, infact the powers that be are rather anti-democracy and both France and America are actully a polyarchy.

In Western European political science, the term polyarchy (Greek: poly "many", arkhe "rule")[1] was used by Robert Dahl to describe a form of government in which power is invested in multiple people. It takes the form of neither a dictatorship nor a democracy.[2] This form of government was first implemented in the United States and France and was gradually adopted by many other countries

Freedom of speach is really a non existent right, in a negatively free society, while on paper some might believe they have or should have the right to speak freely, it's actually a positive freedom, which is not as protected as peoples negative freedom of; being free from hearing it. "Street preaching" interferes with all of the negative liberity of all people on the street.

Negative liberity seeks to protect people from intereference, so someone using positive liberity by preaching on the street is interfering with the people walking by and so effecting their negative liberity. Like with smoking to smoke is a positve freedom and being free from smoke is a negative liberity- so smoking gets banned everywhere. Freedom of speach is going the same way.

Ofcourse its a rather ridiculas as the state and security services have no problem interfering with the negative liberity of others and also behind closed doors decide what is and is not an acceptable freedom for the members of said society to have. 

With regards to LGBT marriage, i do not see the issue really, marriage as a legal institution has already been agreed in many countries and that will continue. Are you arguing that Priests should be forced to marry LGBT people, against their will and theology?
       

48

Just Chat! / Re: Weird statistics?

« on: 25/05/2016 00:34:57 »

Her purpose seems to be to further the 3rd wave intersectional Feminist cause, and Privatise the Fire service.

It's interesting to see these ideas really take root in politics, Obama amoung others quote the stats they create, yet do not actually check them. 

49

Just Chat! / Re: They're having a giraffe ...

« on: 17/05/2016 21:05:19 »

... 'Go forth an make ye many car parks for ye theme parks' ...

Cars powered by fossil fuel which is hundreds of millions of years old.
The source of Noah's ark story says Earth is only ~6000 years old.

Sadly this is true, Not sure why it falls on these crazy right wing fundalmentalist Christians, true some orthodox Jews also believe this. Yet many accept that there is no definition for the time scale of the first days, and hold that it's 6000 since the creation of Adam not the world.

50

Just Chat! / Re: Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 15/05/2016 22:12:44 »

https://vimeo.com/user14444354/review/166378572/11244b88d0

Brexit: The Movie

51

Just Chat! / Re: Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 15/05/2016 19:48:03 »

Leaving EU isnt going to change that tho.   

It will remove one layer of "government by business", which is why Cameron is so scared of Brexit.

It's not going to remove government by business, it'll just stream line it- government run by business is the model, that will only change if Britian decides to redefine what it calls democracy, which is unlikly considering that Britian and America developed the current model together and then thrust it on the world. 

52

Just Chat! / Re: They're having a giraffe ...

« on: 15/05/2016 19:42:33 »

Correction, make that two giraffes ... 

https://youtu.be/p2LankLQZ44?t=55s

OMG!

What an incredable waste of money and resourses, atleast they are putting Dinos in there. Nice to see that people who think their terribly translated Bible, is the complete word of God, have found a way to make cash out of the ignorant.

And Jesus spak 'Go forth an make ye many car parks for ye theme parks', clearly "Stay awake".

53

Just Chat! / Re: Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 09/05/2016 19:49:28 »

I had the pleasure of being an adult before Thatcher became an unlected president, and indeed before the UK was sold into servitude by Heath. In those far-off heady days, members of parliament were elected to represent their constituents, not their parties, and the prime minister was a spokesman, never referred to as a leader or considered equal to a head of state.

Alas, politicians have rather got above themselves, and somehow the electorate seems to have lost the will to mandate, criticise and protest.

The increasing use of the police force as an arm of political government may have something to do with it,

Certainly but it's bigger then that, the entire definition of democracy has been change, to mean "business rules" and voting takes place when people shop, the companies have the power and the people vote for them when consuming. Politicians simply manange the system, for the business' that the people have voted for.

That is the new definition of democracy that Thatcher and Regan brought in. Ofcourse today these companies are too big to fail, as they hold power ofcourse, and even if people stop shopping with them, they are too big to fail and dont need your votes

 

and Blair's contempt for truth, parliament and the public probably sealed the fate of the next generation.

They have all been following the same aganda since Thatcher, because business is now making the decisions and deciding the agenda, no matter who you vote for, you get the same policies. Democracy as it once was is finished in the extreme. Thatcher and Major attacked the NHS in their ways, then Blair and Brown raised up to cost to a completly unsustainable level while allowing the private sector in, which meant the NHS became too expensive to run and then with the private sector already inside and working, with the ecconomic downturn everything is shifted off to the private sector, Cameron is finishing the job that Thatcher started, which Blair, Major and Brown all incrementally played their part in helping to happen. We expect this behaviour from the conservatives, what Blair did as a supposed Labour MP is a real betrayal, he even sold the new investment and public private partnership at the time as "saving the NHS", which in reality was the biggest step in destroying it, and clearly when you wake up to the free market agenda and the role of politics today- that was the point! 

So even if the vast majority of the people want the NHS, there is no plan for it, in future planning; The Business agenda wants a completely private system, and they are in charge. The people have no means of really tackeling that- if they did it would be a democracy, which Britian isnt anymore. Still most are waking up to the reality that it makes no difference who you vote for. Still doesn beg the question how bad does it have to get, before the people take to streets?

Leaving EU isnt going to change that tho.     

54

Just Chat! / Re: Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 06/05/2016 22:51:02 »

In a civilised society where the state exists to serve the citizen,

Oh really I was under the impression that the states main function was upholding property rights.

the state has no more power or authority than the citizens give it.

Well that's an interesting idea, when or where, may I ask, were the citizens consulted when Thather gave away power to the free market? When and where were citizens consulted about Britian becomming a negativly free society? When did citizens ever give authority for mass survilence? Before the Iraq war there was the biggest protest in British History, yet the people were ignored. It's a nice idea you propose, yet the reality does not bare it out.

I think it makes more sense to look at how things actually are, rather then repeat the propoganda we learn at school, or read in the media.

Thus you do not need a "right to life" because the state is subject to the same criminal law on killing as any citizen.

Oh really? and Bond doesnt have a licence to kill, and as the head of MI5 said in court during the Diana trial 'MI5 hasnt assasinated anyone in over 50' years(or something)  [] 

Nor do you need a "right to family" because it would be an offence for anyone to interfere with your personal life.

What a beautiful fantasy you live in, interference is inherently a factor of negative liberity, should you interfere with the negative liberity of others the state and its agents will work to prevent you, and corporations are people, that should be free from hearing your complaints. Ultimately if you simply walk into a room you effect the negative liberity of everyone there, and under the simplified models of human beings they base the theory on, most people need some form of treatment. 
They interfere so we can all be free from intereference- what a cute joke it is.

So you see to have the model and the system, all forms of human activity are pre-decided as acceptable or unacceptable. And where do the citizens have any say over that criteria? They don't even know what system they live in! By design.
 
To quote Isaiah Berlin in my own words "Freedom for the Cat, means death to the Mice" Apart from the reductionist nature of the quote, in short 'no cats allowed'

55

Just Chat! / Re: Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 05/05/2016 23:15:33 »

I've voted for both ends of the scale.

A United States of Europe, with a democratically elected, or preferably soviet-mandated parliament (served by, not serving, the civil service), with a single overarching criminal code, one official language, one central bank, one federal police force, one military command, one hereditary head of state (think President Trump, or President Blair, before you dismiss the idea of Kate'n'Andy as constitutional monarchs)....it could be a civilised version of the USA - a free-enterprise welfare state with military clout but no civilian guns.   

But the present organisation does not make economic or political sense for Britain. The UK has always traded at a loss with the rest of Europe: lowering trade barriers has simply increased the deficit. UK law is based on an entirely different concept (criminalisation and prosecution of wrongs) from that of Europe (enforcement of rights) because under UK law, the state exists to serve the citizen, which is political anathema to our neighbours and does not require a constitution, human rights, and all the other crap that makes work for lawyers and frees criminals to travel and ply their trade across Europe.

I've heard this arguement before, about how human rights laws protects criminals, and how criminals do not deserve any rights. But this is all propoganda really, the states of europe are all including Britian acting criminally, take mass survilence, the state was acting criminally and invading our privacy, but they denied it, then snowden proved to the world they are, so now they are just making their criminal behaviour legal and passing mass survilence into law, the problem for the secutiry services with regard to human rights law, it's not that it protects criminals, inreality no law protects the people from the security services, rather human rights laws makes what the states agencies do- Criminal.

"If no one knows it doesn't happen" This philosophy is what the security services used to engage in mass survilence, and many other pratices, their concern is should the truth of their behaviour come out, under human rights law they'll be in trouble. So if they just get rid of the law, they'll be able to continue their inhuman practice and know they'll be safe from legal issue in the future.

There is no law if it is not enforced, and there can be no law when "if no one knows it didn't happen" is a driving force in activity- any thing goes, just don't get caught.

The defence of one persons rights is the defence of everyones!

And if you are not prepared to defend the rights of others, you certainly not worthy to have them for yourself. People are not criminal till proven so in a court of law. Ofcourse looking at america which is currently drone stiking people(and the neibourhood) they suspect of engaging in criminal behaviour, or suspect might in the future, combined with things like Gantanamo where people were left for years, tortured, mistreated and with no trial at all, says a lot about what the leaders of the first world think about justice and law. 

An Exhortation to the English Sargon of Akkad

56

Just Chat! / Brexit, the question of Britain leaving the European Union

« on: 01/05/2016 03:28:10 »

So it's all about democracy and Britain in or out of Europe

57

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 28/04/2016 04:52:09 »

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

Thanks for that.
I presume you were unable to actually address the issue I raised.

Well the issue was if "life" needs plans or is based on predictions. Mice make plans, Amebas also clearly, So I think Eddies little skit was a nice reponse.

 

 

58

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 27/04/2016 00:13:29 »

Life is not based on predictions
 

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Eddie Izzard Definite Article - Poetry www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCQP5zuou0Q

59

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 25/04/2016 21:28:01 »

Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

Wellll

Without the context of the next sentence which says

Next sentence? This sentence below

" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote

"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"

That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?

Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.

However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?

 Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.

It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"

I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.

I take it that you realise you completely missed the point.
He quotes part of this report.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

But he quotes a cherry picked part of it
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

out of the context which says

 "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential. "

The next sentence obviously isn't void at all.
But, if it were then a bright guy like him would have pointed that out.

He doesnt have to. if it's currently not possible to make models that will acuratly predict the future climate- then it's not possible. 

What you don't seem to understand is that most of life is based on predictions that are not exact- but they are still helpful.
or. more likely, you  do understand it,but you are pretending that it doesn't apply here in order to try and bolster your position.
Nice try.

Life is not based on predictions Scientific life might be tho.

My position is the same that Climate change is not as important an issue, as habitat destruction.

But what exactly doesn't apply? If you know models cant accuratly predict the future climate, they can only really be helpful to people with an agenda ultimatly, either to prove or disprove warming, and models depending on their design can show either. Can bias be taken out of the models contruction? Hard to say when the those making the models often have their motivation for building them. IPCC suggests creating many more and many new models, and then using all the stats they generate, to gain a prediction- it's still a best guess of guesses, that "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" states will not work, as a true predictor, as that's just not possible(maybe that will change, but currently we do not understand all the different factors involved in climate).

So he has not been misleading, by not mentioning the rest of the sentence.     



 

60

The Environment / Re: Are climate skeptics right that there is no link between CO2 levels and temperature?

« on: 25/04/2016 04:16:33 »

Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

It is, I think, telling that he quotes this bit of the IPCC report
"the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

Wellll

Without the context of the next sentence which says

Next sentence? This sentence below

" Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.".

He doesn't make. So I dont know where you got it from. The next sentence was I quote

"Most Importantly the sinario that the burning of fosil fuels leads too catastropy isnt part of what either group asserts"

That's just before he starts saying the politicians, environmentalists and so on are misleading people.
It looks like they have company.

Are you hoping people wont actually watch the video and just hold the old MIT prof as an oil industry insider on the take?

Ofcourse you mean the next sentence of the IPCC report, I take it? you should be clearer if that is what you meant.

However, all that states is that we have to run lots of different models, and take the mean or average result, that's still a guessed prediction which ignores the first statement. So what's your point?

 Afterall the statement "the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" stands for itself, and ultimately makes the latter void.

It's "We cant really know, what the future climate state will be, but we the IPCC feel this is the best way, to best guess"

I fail to see how the MIT prof missing this sentence, shows him to be misleading people.