Juan: Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists.
The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved. To put it into other terms: If you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk sex to eunuchs. These "scientists" are emotional, spiritual, and philisophical eunuchs.
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there? C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy! What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat? Bielefeld doesn't exist? Fuckers. Indeed.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:58:24 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites,
It's obvious that all 'scieniists' working for the state are parasites working for fascist states. Perhaps you need to research the nature of the political system you live in a bit more?
or idiots, who are the sane people left?
Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there?
C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
I thought it was clear that any dissenter gets silenced or ignored. So you could have saved yourself the misrepresentatin. It's not 'every' one, just the majority. On the other hand, I'm familiar with 'libertarian' anti-conspiracy bullshit, so you could save it too for...other audiences.
What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat? Bielefeld doesn't exist?
Fuckers. Indeed.
Hello all, "scientist" (PhD candidate) here in the field of computer science and cyber security. Most of the scientists I have encountered are not totally malicious, just oblivious to the moral, ethical and political consequences of their work. They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people. There are a few, however, who do what they can to shift power back into the hands of the people. I was greatly influenced by a paper by Phil Rogaway entitled "On the moral character of cryptographic work," and I try my best to do research that works for the benefit of the people, not governments or wealthy power holders. Only time will tell if I am successful, but I will do my best. There are others who also work with morals in mind. It is not so black and white as "scientists are evil people working for fascists." They are just unaware of the consequences of their work. On Oct 24, 2016 3:06 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:58:24 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites,
It's obvious that all 'scieniists' working for the state are parasites working for fascist states. Perhaps you need to research the nature of the political system you live in a bit more?
or idiots, who are the sane people left?
Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there?
C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
I thought it was clear that any dissenter gets silenced or ignored. So you could have saved yourself the misrepresentatin. It's not 'every' one, just the majority.
On the other hand, I'm familiar with 'libertarian' anti-conspiracy bullshit, so you could save it too for...other audiences.
What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat? Bielefeld doesn't exist?
Fuckers. Indeed.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
On Oct 25, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
For real. +100 (as comrade Alex would say) Take that view point around here and you will be called absurd shit like a "scientific truther" =)
On 10/25/2016 05:24 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 25, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
For real. +100 (as comrade Alex would say)
Take that view point around here and you will be called absurd shit like a "scientific truther" =)
So let me hear you deny the state of science is often contaminated, perverted and raped by the science of the state. I BELIEVE that's a major topic of discussion here. How the GOVERNMENT funds COMPUTER SCIENCE making it's 'industrial output' to the end user SUSPECT. That's because scientists on the GOVERNMENT DOLE don't really do much in the way of free inquiry, and I'll re-state, from another thread, why... aside from the need to keep a roof over your head and not end up the academic variant of 'the slandering of ioerror', by hostile 'colleagues': 'Peer-review eats one's mind. Like the earwig in that Night Gallery episode.' Or perhaps more apropos, this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofMJ6cwzLM H/t grarpamp for the link... Rr
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:03:00 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/25/2016 05:24 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Oct 25, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote: They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
For real. +100 (as comrade Alex would say)
Take that view point around here and you will be called absurd shit like a "scientific truther" =)
So let me hear you deny the state of science is often contaminated, perverted and raped by the science of the state.
I BELIEVE that's a major topic of discussion here.
Indeed.
How the GOVERNMENT funds COMPUTER SCIENCE making it's 'industrial output' to the end user SUSPECT.
And not only computer science.
That's because scientists on the GOVERNMENT DOLE don't really do much in the way of free inquiry,
Indeed.
and I'll re-state, from another thread, why... aside from the need to keep a roof over your head and not end up the academic variant of 'the slandering of ioerror', by hostile 'colleagues':
'Peer-review eats one's mind. Like the earwig in that Night Gallery episode.' Or perhaps more apropos, this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OofMJ6cwzLM
H/t grarpamp for the link...
Rr
Hello Tom, I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite. If I believed science was the enemy I would not be working towards my Ph.D.. I am simply pointing out that the current system is quite screwed up. Science is the process by which we discover and understand the truth. In that form, science is wonderful. However there has been a large switch away from discovery and towards creating products for wealthy influential players, at least in the computer science field. The scientific curiosity has become about what will make money, not what is true. Additionally, science is not without limits. We, as scientists, cannot perform experiments that harm people. We also cannot perform experiments without consent. I would also suggest that our ethics should include avoiding projects that harm the people, such as creating mass surveillence systems and facilitating the violation of basic human rights. If we perform such research, we should also include counter-measures to preserve the balance of power. Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication. In short, science and the scientific process is not truly the enemy. Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain. If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails. Kevin Gallagher On Oct 25, 2016 12:59 AM, "Tom" <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
Hello Kevin, On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite.
Ah, great. However, there are a couple of people on the list, who do. My mail was merely directed at them, not at you personally. Sorry if it sounded that way!
The scientific curiosity has become about what will make money, not what is true.
Well well well, but I'd like to disagree (a little) - yes, the economy and politics have corrupted how scientific institutions work (note that I don't say "science" here) and therefore many scientists work in environments where they look for profitable solutions instead of gaining general knowledge. But on the other hand, there are still many many scientists fighting their way through the system. I think it's you cannot generalize it that way. You see, there are even scientists in Mongolia and I think you'll agree that it's absolutely impossible they are working for the powers that be :) In other words: I still have hope that not all is lost!
Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication.
The problem is, that knowledge is neutral and ethics depends on the people's current views. Nuclear fission works the same wether you look at it from 1945 or 2017. Yes, many scary things have been discovered and published so far. But if all those scary things haven't been published when they were scary, we might very well still use horse-drawn carriages for transportation. Look at it from the security industry perspective: full disclosure of vulnerabilities in software is way better than keeping this knowledge secret. A few who know about it (the NSA) can abuse it to gain power over other people, while nobody else is able to defend themselfes. So, making vulnerabilities public might give the bad boys tools to attack people, but it also gives everyone else the possiblity for defense. I think it is the same with general science. Better everyone knows it than just a few.
Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain.
Indeed. But there are scientists who are fighting against this.
If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails.
I will do that. best, Tom
On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote:
there are a couple of people on the list, who do...
No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be 'science' is twisted and perverted to fit the needs of industrialists and capitalists excluding science beneficial to humanity. GMO farming research comes immediately to mind. Rr
Hello Kevin,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite.
Ah, great. However, there are a couple of people on the list, who do. My mail was merely directed at them, not at you personally. Sorry if it sounded that way!
The scientific curiosity has become about what will make money, not what is true.
Well well well, but I'd like to disagree (a little) - yes, the economy and politics have corrupted how scientific institutions work (note that I don't say "science" here) and therefore many scientists work in environments where they look for profitable solutions instead of gaining general knowledge. But on the other hand, there are still many many scientists fighting their way through the system.
I think it's you cannot generalize it that way. You see, there are even scientists in Mongolia and I think you'll agree that it's absolutely impossible they are working for the powers that be :)
In other words: I still have hope that not all is lost!
Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication.
The problem is, that knowledge is neutral and ethics depends on the people's current views. Nuclear fission works the same wether you look at it from 1945 or 2017.
Yes, many scary things have been discovered and published so far. But if all those scary things haven't been published when they were scary, we might very well still use horse-drawn carriages for transportation.
Look at it from the security industry perspective: full disclosure of vulnerabilities in software is way better than keeping this knowledge secret. A few who know about it (the NSA) can abuse it to gain power over other people, while nobody else is able to defend themselfes. So, making vulnerabilities public might give the bad boys tools to attack people, but it also gives everyone else the possiblity for defense.
I think it is the same with general science. Better everyone knows it than just a few.
Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain.
Indeed. But there are scientists who are fighting against this.
If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails.
I will do that.
best, Tom
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:24:12 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote:
there are a couple of people on the list, who do...
No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be 'science' is twisted and perverted to fit the needs of industrialists and capitalists excluding science beneficial to humanity.
It should be mentioned that a lot of 'scientific' effort is devoted to extend the power of the state. The 'private' sector is not blameless, but they are not the only criminals. Whereas the 'private' sector is concerned with money, the public commie sector wants raw power. Check the rerefences[1] [1] 1984
GMO farming research comes immediately to mind.
Rr
Hello Kevin,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite.
Ah, great. However, there are a couple of people on the list, who do. My mail was merely directed at them, not at you personally. Sorry if it sounded that way!
The scientific curiosity has become about what will make money, not what is true.
Well well well, but I'd like to disagree (a little) - yes, the economy and politics have corrupted how scientific institutions work (note that I don't say "science" here) and therefore many scientists work in environments where they look for profitable solutions instead of gaining general knowledge. But on the other hand, there are still many many scientists fighting their way through the system.
I think it's you cannot generalize it that way. You see, there are even scientists in Mongolia and I think you'll agree that it's absolutely impossible they are working for the powers that be :)
In other words: I still have hope that not all is lost!
Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication.
The problem is, that knowledge is neutral and ethics depends on the people's current views. Nuclear fission works the same wether you look at it from 1945 or 2017.
Yes, many scary things have been discovered and published so far. But if all those scary things haven't been published when they were scary, we might very well still use horse-drawn carriages for transportation.
Look at it from the security industry perspective: full disclosure of vulnerabilities in software is way better than keeping this knowledge secret. A few who know about it (the NSA) can abuse it to gain power over other people, while nobody else is able to defend themselfes. So, making vulnerabilities public might give the bad boys tools to attack people, but it also gives everyone else the possiblity for defense.
I think it is the same with general science. Better everyone knows it than just a few.
Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain.
Indeed. But there are scientists who are fighting against this.
If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails.
I will do that.
best, Tom
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:24:12AM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 10/26/2016 11:14 AM, Tom wrote:
there are a couple of people on the list, who do...
No. I don't think there are. I just think some of us believe a more-than-small-portion of what's purported to be 'science' is twisted and perverted to fit the needs of industrialists and capitalists excluding science beneficial to humanity.
GMO farming research comes immediately to mind.
Rr
First Russia's nation-wide ban on GMO crops, now the first province in China to begin this GMO banning process: 27.12.2016 Author: F. William Engdahl China and the Butterfly Effect http://journal-neo.org/2016/12/27/china-and-the-butterfly-effect/
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:14:51 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
Hello Kevin,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
I do not claim that science is the enemy. It is the opposite.
Ah, great. However, there are a couple of people on the list, who do.
Who are they, Tom?
My mail was merely directed at them, not at you personally. Sorry if it sounded that way!
The scientific curiosity has become about what will make money, not what is true.
Well well well, but I'd like to disagree (a little) - yes, the economy and politics have corrupted how scientific institutions work (note that I don't say "science" here) and therefore many scientists work in environments where they look for profitable solutions instead of gaining general knowledge. But on the other hand, there are still many many scientists fighting their way through the system.
And where's the 'scientific' evidence for your propaganda claim? Because you know even two minutes research should inform you of what's going on. Unless you are a willfully ignorant, fully biased cheerleader for the 'scientific' establishment.
I think it's you cannot generalize it that way.
Oh but you can generalize the other, patently false, way.
You see, there are even scientists in Mongolia and I think you'll agree that it's absolutely impossible they are working for the powers that be :)
Dude, the 'international' 'scientific' 'community' uses FUCKING IMPERIAL ENGLISH, and the universtity parasities in mongolia working for mongolia's national universities are no different from the parasites at harvard university or berlin university. or any other place.
In other words: I still have hope that not all is lost!
The fuck has 'hope' to do with truth.
Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication.
The problem is, that knowledge is neutral and ethics depends on the people's current views.
What.
Nuclear fission works the same wether you look at it from 1945 or 2017.
Yes, many scary things have been discovered and published so far. But if all those scary things haven't been published when they were scary, we might very well still use horse-drawn carriages for transportation.
Look at it from the security industry perspective: full disclosure of vulnerabilities in software is way better than keeping this knowledge secret. A few who know about it (the NSA) can abuse it to gain power over other people, while nobody else is able to defend themselfes. So, making vulnerabilities public might give the bad boys tools to attack people, but it also gives everyone else the possiblity for defense.
What has that got to do wiht corruption among state parasites? Rhetorical question. Answer : very little.
I think it is the same with general science. Better everyone knows it than just a few.
True. And the relationship of that truism to the nature of the 'scientific' establishment? None.
Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain.
Indeed. But there are scientists who are fighting against this.
If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails.
I will do that.
best, Tom
Juan,
Who are they, Tom?
As I understand your mails, you're one of them. Maybe I misunderstood your mails - my appologies in that case.
And where's the 'scientific' evidence for your propaganda claim?
Why should I make propaganda? I'm not the government nor do I work for one. I just happen to love science. Here are a couple of examples of the kind of science I wrote about earlier: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026142145.htm http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/10/26/three_stars_illuminate_n... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161026.html How could a sane person think they are 'parasites'? This is nonsense.
Because you know even two minutes research should inform you of what's going on. Unless you are a willfully ignorant, fully biased cheerleader for the 'scientific' establishment.
Let me fill in the role you're projecting onto me for a moment: please show me the evidence of your propaganda claim.
Oh but you can generalize the other, patently false, way.
I don't. I just say not all science is evil. We'd not have this discussion otherwise.
Dude, the 'international' 'scientific' 'community' uses FUCKING IMPERIAL ENGLISH, and the universtity parasities in mongolia working for mongolia's national universities are no different from the parasites at harvard university or berlin university. or any other place.
I'd love it to see you on the panel during a science convention or the like and speak like this to scientists :) Really, Juan, I surely agree with you, that there are scientists one could call 'parasites'. But not all of them, that's ridiculous. Tom.
But But! Whitey's on the MOON! That's my problem with your, and so many other worshipers of Technocracy's worldview, in a sentence Tom. Those pretty pictures come with a price, and that price is MURDER, of people who would never get to see those pretty pictures. Another example... This gun can fire ONE MILLION ROUNDS A MINUTE and any soldier could set it up: http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/149984188784 Nice. Just what humanity needs. Suppose the 'scientists' and 'engineers' (and machinists and assemblers) who developed it give one fuck how many innocent people it kills Tom? You know what I'd LIKE to do to the people who developed than gun Tom. Put the whole fuckload of them in front of one and USE IT FOR TRULY HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES. Listen to your psychotherapist Tom: "The founder of Gestalt Therapy, Paul Goodman, speaking by invitation to the National Security Industrial Association —a consortium of arms manufacturers, at the October 1967 “Research and Development in the 1970s” symposium, Washington DC. "You are the military industrial [complex] of the United States, the most dangerous body of men at present in the world, for you not only implement our disastrous policies but are an overwhelming lobby for them, and you expand and rigidify the wrong use of brains, resources, and labor so that change becomes difficult.” (He continued as the audience sat in stunned silence.) “The best service you people could perform is rather rapidly to phase yourselves out, passing on your relevant knowledge to people better qualified, or reorganizing yourselves with entirely different sponsors and commitments, so that you learn to think and feel in a different way. Since you are most of the R&D [research and development] that there is, we cannot do without you as people, but we cannot do with you as you are.” (laughter and booing along with scattered applause) “but we believe, however, that that way of life is unnecessary, ugly, and un-American.” (Shouts from the audience: “Who are ‘we’?”) “We are I and those people outside —we cannot condone your present operations; they should be wiped off the slate.” I am on the outside thinking your "Science" needs to be Wiped From The Slate... Along with it's funders. We'll use that 1x10(6) round a minute gun. I'll pull the digital trigger. Rr On 10/27/2016 04:58 AM, Tom wrote:
Juan,
Who are they, Tom?
As I understand your mails, you're one of them. Maybe I misunderstood your mails - my appologies in that case.
And where's the 'scientific' evidence for your propaganda claim?
Why should I make propaganda? I'm not the government nor do I work for one. I just happen to love science. Here are a couple of examples of the kind of science I wrote about earlier:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026142145.htm http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/10/26/three_stars_illuminate_n... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161026.html
How could a sane person think they are 'parasites'? This is nonsense.
Because you know even two minutes research should inform you of what's going on. Unless you are a willfully ignorant, fully biased cheerleader for the 'scientific' establishment.
Let me fill in the role you're projecting onto me for a moment: please show me the evidence of your propaganda claim.
Oh but you can generalize the other, patently false, way.
I don't. I just say not all science is evil. We'd not have this discussion otherwise.
Dude, the 'international' 'scientific' 'community' uses FUCKING IMPERIAL ENGLISH, and the universtity parasities in mongolia working for mongolia's national universities are no different from the parasites at harvard university or berlin university. or any other place.
I'd love it to see you on the panel during a science convention or the like and speak like this to scientists :)
Really, Juan, I surely agree with you, that there are scientists one could call 'parasites'. But not all of them, that's ridiculous.
Tom.
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:58:06 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
Juan,
Who are they, Tom?
As I understand your mails, you're one of them. Maybe I misunderstood your mails
I never said "science is the enemy" - I do say that technicians working for the establishment and pretending to be 'scientists' are the enemy. The claims are related, but not equal.
- my appologies in that case.
No apologies needed ;)
And where's the 'scientific' evidence for your propaganda claim?
Why should I make propaganda? I'm not the government nor do I work for one. I just happen to love science.
Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the establishment can be biased. You like what they do regardless of where the funding comes from.
Here are a couple of examples of the kind of science I wrote about earlier:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026142145.htm http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/10/26/three_stars_illuminate_n... http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161026.html
You like astronomy? Fine. Do astronomy with your own money. "Upper Paleolithic humans may have hunted cave lions for their pelts" Really?? But they also may NOT have hunted cave lions, right? Don't you see anything wrong, even with the wording of the 'scientific' 'fact'? Do you think that suggesting a possibility and providing very flimsy evidence for it is 'science'? And are there people who feel curious about what happened to lions 10,000 years ago anyway? Fine. Let them waste or devote their onw resources to find out.
How could a sane person think they are 'parasites'? This is nonsense.
How could any sane person deny that fucking NASA, which is nothing but a branch of the US gov't and more precisely of the pentagon are not parasites? I assumed you knew that by definition gov't employees and contractors are parasites. That is a 'scientific' truth.
Because you know even two minutes research should inform you of what's going on. Unless you are a willfully ignorant, fully biased cheerleader for the 'scientific' establishment.
Let me fill in the role you're projecting onto me for a moment: please show me the evidence of your propaganda claim.
You just provided the evidence yourself. Here's one more datapoint https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/basic-science-can-t-survive-witho... Do you realize that your 'beloved' scientists are sceaming "We are gov't funded parasites" ? Seriously, find out how many millions governemnts steal from taxpayers and give to 'scientists'. Find out how much money big business spend on 'research', and see if that money was legitimately earned in the first place.
Oh but you can generalize the other, patently false, way.
I don't. I just say not all science is evil. We'd not have this discussion otherwise.
Again, I'm not talking about science if correctly defined as an unbiased search for truth. I'm talking about the people who claim to do science, the vast majority of them being paid with stolen money, to 'research' completely irrelevant stuff like 'paleolithic lions', or to 'explain' how central banking is the source of civilization and progress.
Dude, the 'international' 'scientific' 'community' uses FUCKING IMPERIAL ENGLISH, and the universtity parasities in mongolia working for mongolia's national universities are no different from the parasites at harvard university or berlin university. or any other place.
I'd love it to see you on the panel during a science convention or the like and speak like this to scientists :)
I'd love to. And what do you think they would do? Call the cops. At any rate, your theory that 'scientists' in monogolia are somehow independent because they are in a 'third world' country is nonsense. Here in argentina enlish is not the official language either - that doesn't stop the local 'researchers' (virtually all of them gov't employees) from reading and writing 'papers' in english...
Really, Juan, I surely agree with you, that there are scientists one could call 'parasites'. But not all of them, that's ridiculous.
Like I said a couple of times, and I'll repeat, there are some dissenters, but the vast majority are on the wrong side of 'science'.
Tom.
On 10/27/2016 02:14 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Yes, biology did become more popular after the 50s, in reaction to nuclear weapons. Feynman did have a good point, but he was rather a sarcastic asshole. To unpack a bit, he was distinguishing between observation and experimentation. Experimentation is far more effective than plain observation. Mostly because you can focus better on variables of interest. Also because you can ask clearer questions. He was also arguing that all experimental sciences are basically just elaborations on physics. And that's bullshit. Because there's emergent stuff, as you move up levels of structure, process and information. Sure, you can call it all physics, but you'd still need categories for coherent discussion. Then we have cosmology, which associates with physics, but is purely observational. And there are some aspects of particle physics that seem to be untestable. Let's hope that someone doesn't figure out how to create false vacuum ;)
On 10/27/2016 02:14 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Oh, and another thing. The problem isn't science. It's human nature. I'm not optimistic. I suspect that we're a transitional stage in the evolution of consciousness. And that's what's important. Not a particular flavor of meat ;)
I never said "science is the enemy" - I do say that technicians working for the establishment and pretending to be 'scientists' are the enemy. The claims are related, but not equal.
Ok, makes sense.
Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the establishment can be biased. You like what they do regardless of where the funding comes from.
If I can learn something new, does it really matter, who paid for it?
You like astronomy? Fine. Do astronomy with your own money.
Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies :)
"Upper Paleolithic humans may have hunted cave lions for their pelts"
Really?? But they also may NOT have hunted cave lions, right? Don't you see anything wrong, even with the wording of the 'scientific' 'fact'? Do you think that suggesting a possibility and providing very flimsy evidence for it is 'science'?
I see. This particular example might be the wrong one. The problem we'd need to discuss here are the media. Of course, if one study says something "might have happened" this is no fact. However, media immediately report about such singular studies as if it were. Also, somewhere else someone stated, that science is about finding the truth. But this is false as well. Science is about theories and confirming evidence, experiments and studies. However, they remain theories. This is the core of science: a serious theory must be falsifiable. That is, even theories as the "theory of relativity" or "global warming" might some day fall apart when someone finds evidence which contradicts it. But in the meantime science works with the consensus (we had this point already in the climate thread), since you must work with something. So, did humans hunt cave lions? I don't know. But I know one thing: we humans are the most dangerous species on this planet, so why not? We kill everything, including our own fellow humans.
And are there people who feel curious about what happened to lions 10,000 years ago anyway? Fine. Let them waste or devote their onw resources to find out.
I am curious about this, but we digress :)
How could any sane person deny that fucking NASA, which is nothing but a branch of the US gov't and more precisely of the pentagon are not parasites? I assumed you knew that by definition gov't employees and contractors are parasites. That is a 'scientific' truth.
I don't deny this. However, the knowledge they acquire is good for all of us, wether you're interested in astronomy or not. I understand your point but I cannot reject all NASA does just because they are government backed.
Do you realize that your 'beloved' scientists are sceaming "We are gov't funded parasites" ?
Yes, I do. The question is, who shall fund them instead? Corporations? That's just the same shit. Crowdfunding? Will never happen. There'd be no science at all without funding. We'd still be hunterers and gatherers :)
Again, I'm not talking about science if correctly defined as an unbiased search for truth. I'm talking about the people who claim to do science, the vast majority of them being paid with stolen money, to 'research' completely irrelevant stuff like 'paleolithic lions', or to 'explain' how central banking is the source of civilization and progress.
Ok. Tom
On 10/28/2016 12:41 AM, Tom wrote:
Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies
Why not? In 1988 or so I took an Epson HX-20 cp/m laptop and put it on the intertubz, and packet radio, using a basic 1.1 program I wrote myself that also would print out (on demand) a log or screen info to it's cash register tape printer while storing the info and the program on a microcassete and it ran at a whopping 1200baud, which was a fast as the buss and 4K of ram was ever going to go. That was when 9600 baud was typical and 14.4 was blazing fast. I made a a packet contact bouncing of the digipeater on the Mir space station with a friend about 50 miles away using a 2 el quad, that computer, and a 5 watt Alinco handie-talkie on 2m Enough brag. My point is, if you wanted to build an orbital telescope you could, with the kind of collaboration it took to build the 220mhz California digipeater backbone perhaps, but make some like minded friends and anything is possible. Even a telescope sat launch from Guyana... AAMOF Orbital sats are EZ! It's the geostationary ones that you'll have talk to the feds about, because they think they own that space, in space. Rr Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier it's going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the scientists. They should hold bake sales for their projects until the time they unhook themselves from the Pentagon and the "Life-extension-at-any-cost-while-not-giving-a-fuck-about-the-QUALITY-of-that-life' BigPharma scam.
I never said "science is the enemy" - I do say that technicians working for the establishment and pretending to be 'scientists' are the enemy. The claims are related, but not equal.
Ok, makes sense.
Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the establishment can be biased. You like what they do regardless of where the funding comes from.
If I can learn something new, does it really matter, who paid for it?
You like astronomy? Fine. Do astronomy with your own money.
Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies :)
"Upper Paleolithic humans may have hunted cave lions for their pelts"
Really?? But they also may NOT have hunted cave lions, right? Don't you see anything wrong, even with the wording of the 'scientific' 'fact'? Do you think that suggesting a possibility and providing very flimsy evidence for it is 'science'?
I see. This particular example might be the wrong one. The problem we'd need to discuss here are the media. Of course, if one study says something "might have happened" this is no fact. However, media immediately report about such singular studies as if it were.
Also, somewhere else someone stated, that science is about finding the truth. But this is false as well. Science is about theories and confirming evidence, experiments and studies. However, they remain theories. This is the core of science: a serious theory must be falsifiable. That is, even theories as the "theory of relativity" or "global warming" might some day fall apart when someone finds evidence which contradicts it. But in the meantime science works with the consensus (we had this point already in the climate thread), since you must work with something.
So, did humans hunt cave lions? I don't know. But I know one thing: we humans are the most dangerous species on this planet, so why not? We kill everything, including our own fellow humans.
And are there people who feel curious about what happened to lions 10,000 years ago anyway? Fine. Let them waste or devote their onw resources to find out.
I am curious about this, but we digress :)
How could any sane person deny that fucking NASA, which is nothing but a branch of the US gov't and more precisely of the pentagon are not parasites? I assumed you knew that by definition gov't employees and contractors are parasites. That is a 'scientific' truth.
I don't deny this. However, the knowledge they acquire is good for all of us, wether you're interested in astronomy or not. I understand your point but I cannot reject all NASA does just because they are government backed.
Do you realize that your 'beloved' scientists are sceaming "We are gov't funded parasites" ?
Yes, I do. The question is, who shall fund them instead? Corporations? That's just the same shit. Crowdfunding? Will never happen. There'd be no science at all without funding. We'd still be hunterers and gatherers :)
Again, I'm not talking about science if correctly defined as an unbiased search for truth. I'm talking about the people who claim to do science, the vast majority of them being paid with stolen money, to 'research' completely irrelevant stuff like 'paleolithic lions', or to 'explain' how central banking is the source of civilization and progress.
Ok.
Tom
On 10/28/2016 10:06 AM, Razer wrote:
Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier it's going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the scientists. They should hold bake sales for their projects until the time they unhook themselves from the Pentagon and the "Life-extension-at-any-cost-while-not-giving-a-fuck-about-the-QUALITY-of-that-life' BigPharma scam.
I have to start thinking about funding soon. I better start making brownies and selling them in places where people would care about my research! I'm really not interested in taking dirty DoD money or something like that. -- Kevin Gallagher Key Fingerprint: D02B 25CB 0F7D E276 06C3 BF08 53E4 C50F 8247 4861
On 10/28/2016 07:33 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
I have to start thinking about funding soon. I better start making brownies and selling them in places where people would care about my research! I'm really not interested in taking dirty DoD money or something like that.
Go to Colorado... Boulder perhaps ... Put da kine inna da brownee mix. You'll get it. If your project ins a Cyclotron or something it might take a while but... Rr
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
If your project ins a Cyclotron or something it might take a while but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/this-fall-the-radioactive-boy-scout-d... David Charles Hahn (October 30, 1976 – September 27, 2016),[1] also called the "Radioactive Boy Scout" or the "Nuclear Boy Scout", was an American who attempted to build a homemade breeder reactor in 1994, at age 17. A Eagle scout in the Boy Scouts of America, Hahn conducted his experiments in secret in a backyard shed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Wilson
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:33:52 -0400 Kevin Gallagher <kcg295@nyu.edu> wrote:
On 10/28/2016 10:06 AM, Razer wrote:
Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier it's going to require a cultural shift to literally DISARM the scientists. They should hold bake sales for their projects until the time they unhook themselves from the Pentagon and the "Life-extension-at-any-cost-while-not-giving-a-fuck-about-the-QUALITY-of-that-life' BigPharma scam.
I have to start thinking about funding soon.
Interesting examples of voluntary funding here https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena https://www.crowdsupply.com/lime-micro/limesdr https://www.crowdsupply.com/cryptech/open-hardware-security-module https://www.crowdsupply.com/inverse-path/usb-armory https://www.crowdsupply.com/design-shift/orwl etc.
I better start making brownies and selling them in places where people would care about my research! I'm really not interested in taking dirty DoD money or something like that.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 07:06:09AM -0700, Razer wrote:
Why not?
In 1988 or so I took an Epson HX-20 cp/m laptop and put it on the intertubz, and packet radio, using a basic 1.1 program I wrote myself that also would print out (on demand) a log or screen info to it's cash register tape printer while storing the info and the program on a microcassete and it ran at a whopping 1200baud, which was a fast as the buss and 4K of ram was ever going to go. That was when 9600 baud was typical and 14.4 was blazing fast.
I made a a packet contact bouncing of the digipeater on the Mir space station with a friend about 50 miles away using a 2 el quad, that computer, and a 5 watt Alinco handie-talkie on 2m
Wow, cool!
Enough brag. My point is, if you wanted to build an orbital telescope you could, with the kind of collaboration it took to build the 220mhz California digipeater backbone perhaps, but make some like minded friends and anything is possible. Even a telescope sat launch from Guyana...
Possibly, but it would be a hard endeavor, wouldn't it? :)
AAMOF Orbital sats are EZ! It's the geostationary ones that you'll have talk to the feds about, because they think they own that space, in space.
Same here in germany. But it's even better here: while they claim to have jurisdiction above us, they say the constitution doesn't apply there, because it only applies on the ground (nobody really understands this argument). So, shoot a drone or launch your own rocket and go to jail while the very same people spy on everyone from above.
Ps. Obviously, I don't hate science... as someone mentioned earlier
That someone would be me, sorry! Tom.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:41:02 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
Thanks for providing a reason why your view of the establishment can be biased. You like what they do regardless of where the funding comes from.
If I can learn something new, does it really matter, who paid for it?
Well, at least you are being candid. "The end justifies the means". And in this case "end" is simply something that you like, not even some fuzzy 'common good'. Too bad such justification isn't exactly valid.
You like astronomy? Fine. Do astronomy with your own money.
Yeah, I'll build my own orbital telescope and count galaxies :)
You can do whatever you want, as long as you can raise the money by voluntary means. The concept isn't hard to understand...I assumed you subscribe to some sort libertarian political philosphy? Am I mistaken? At any rate, it's obvious that there are economic/physical LIMITS to ANY 'scientific' project, or even to ANY project, even when funded with stolen money. Such is reality...
"Upper Paleolithic humans may have hunted cave lions for their pelts"
Really?? But they also may NOT have hunted cave lions, right? Don't you see anything wrong, even with the wording of the 'scientific' 'fact'? Do you think that suggesting a possibility and providing very flimsy evidence for it is 'science'?
I see. This particular example might be the wrong one. The problem we'd need to discuss here are the media. Of course, if one study says something "might have happened" this is no fact. However, media immediately report about such singular studies as if it were.
I don't see how the media come into play here. You selected the article, not the media. But since you mention the media, do notice that the academics and the media are complicit. It is thanks to the corrupt media and their promotion of state 'science' that the 'scientists' get their stolen funds.
Also, somewhere else someone stated, that science is about finding the truth. But this is false as well.
That seems kinda contradictory...
Science is about theories and confirming evidence, experiments and studies.
Theories, evidence and experiment? What about those? Are they 'true', 'false' or what?
However, they remain theories. This is the core of science: a serious theory must be falsifiable. That is, even theories as the "theory of relativity" or "global warming" might some day fall apart when someone finds evidence which contradicts it. But in the meantime science works with the consensus (we had this point already in the climate thread),
Yes, the claim that truth is a matter of consensus was made. It of course remains an absurd claim and thankfully people didn't even bother to provide a 'proof' (there isn't any valid one of course).
since you must work with something.
Why? There's no truth but you 'must' work?
So, did humans hunt cave lions?
If they did, that would be hardly surprising, which is why that piece of 'scientific' research is just a joke. To sum up, somebody writes a paper about something that 1) is likely to have happened 2) but can't actually be proven 3) yet the author covers his ass by saying "uh but maybe it DIDN'T happen eh" 4) is pretty much irrelevant anyway 5) it's the perfect nonsense for some anonymous 'researcher' to get a GRANT.
I don't know. But I know one thing: we humans are the most dangerous species on this planet, so why not?
Right, humans were HUNTERS and HUNTED STUFF. Wow. We really need 1000s of millions of dollars stolen and wasted to find such amazing 'scientific' NON-TRUTH =) Because science isn't about truth anyway.
We kill everything, including our own fellow humans.
True. Notice that the vast majority of human predators work for the state though. For instance, NASA, which isn't really concerned with astronomy, but with space-based weapons.
And are there people who feel curious about what happened to lions 10,000 years ago anyway? Fine. Let them waste or devote their onw resources to find out.
I am curious about this, but we digress :)
Actually you picked a perfect example for me to make my points. Thank you very much =P
How could any sane person deny that fucking NASA, which is nothing but a branch of the US gov't and more precisely of the pentagon are not parasites? I assumed you knew that by definition gov't employees and contractors are parasites. That is a 'scientific' truth.
I don't deny this. However, the knowledge they acquire is good for all of us, wether you're interested in astronomy or not.
SOME of the knowledge is useful. Some is not knowledge but just bullshit. Some other knwoledge can be easily misused so it's quite debatable how good it is. Tell me what is the value of learning how to build weapons of mass destruction.
I understand your point but I cannot reject all NASA does just because they are government backed.
Whatever useful stuff they do can be done in a civilized, i.e. not-state-funded way. And if there are some pet useless projects that can't be voluntary funded, so what. Resources ARE limited.
Do you realize that your 'beloved' scientists are sceaming "We are gov't funded parasites" ?
Yes, I do. The question is, who shall fund them instead? Corporations? That's just the same shit. Crowdfunding? Will never happen. There'd be no science at all without funding. We'd still be hunterers and gatherers :)
That's a whole paragraph full of nonsense and propaganda. Do your own RESEARCH =) Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
Again, I'm not talking about science if correctly defined as an unbiased search for truth. I'm talking about the people who claim to do science, the vast majority of them being paid with stolen money, to 'research' completely irrelevant stuff like 'paleolithic lions', or to 'explain' how central banking is the source of civilization and progress.
Ok.
Tom
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote:
Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer? For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P John
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit. You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling. On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote:
Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :) Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway? And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch. Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting. John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit. You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :)
Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway?
And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch.
Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
Hey, the bots broken again ? Seems to be on repeat. Your blatant hypocrisy was my point, obviously. Just because Juan says it (or denies it) - does not make it so. John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :)
Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway?
And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch.
Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
There isn't any hypocrysy on my part. I unlike you do not advocate STATISM and CENSORSHIP in the 'cypherpunks' mailing list. "get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods" That's exactly what the most corrupt and stupid statist shitbag would say. Do you sonny realize that the belief that all 'progress' comes from state funded 'science' is its own cosmic parody? Corrupt dumbfuck, I'm not wasting any more time with you =) I suggest you join the 'crpytography' circle-jerk and get lost.
Hey, the bots broken again ? Seems to be on repeat.
Your blatant hypocrisy was my point, obviously.
Just because Juan says it (or denies it) - does not make it so.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :)
Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway?
And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch.
Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: Let me point out though that your line of thinking that goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;) Cosmic parody? "Sonny" (lol)? Something here is a cosmic parody, but it isn't some words and beliefs you've put in my mouth. Cheers John On November 3, 2016 6:27:59 PM EDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
There isn't any hypocrysy on my part. I unlike you do not advocate STATISM and CENSORSHIP in the 'cypherpunks' mailing list.
"get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods"
That's exactly what the most corrupt and stupid statist shitbag would say. Do you sonny realize that the belief that all 'progress' comes from state funded 'science' is its own cosmic parody?
Corrupt dumbfuck, I'm not wasting any more time with you =) I suggest you join the 'crpytography' circle-jerk and get lost.
Hey, the bots broken again ? Seems to be on repeat.
Your blatant hypocrisy was my point, obviously.
Just because Juan says it (or denies it) - does not make it so.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :)
Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway?
And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch.
Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: > Let me point out though that your line of thinking that > goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the > mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable.
If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer?
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
John
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 11/03/2016 08:20 PM, John wrote:
Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;)
Cosmic parody? "Sonny" (lol)? Something here is a cosmic parody, but it isn't some words and beliefs you've put in my mouth.
Hey, friends don't let friends talk to Juan ;)
Cheers
John
On November 3, 2016 6:27:59 PM EDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
There isn't any hypocrysy on my part. I unlike you do not advocate STATISM and CENSORSHIP in the 'cypherpunks' mailing list.
"get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods"
That's exactly what the most corrupt and stupid statist shitbag would say. Do you sonny realize that the belief that all 'progress' comes from state funded 'science' is its own cosmic parody?
Corrupt dumbfuck, I'm not wasting any more time with you =) I suggest you join the 'crpytography' circle-jerk and get lost.
Hey, the bots broken again ? Seems to be on repeat.
Your blatant hypocrisy was my point, obviously.
Just because Juan says it (or denies it) - does not make it so.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid STATIST piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
You can dish it the fuck out Juan, but you can't take it :)
Wanna call me a faggot retard now? How old are you anyway?
And yes, you do truly embody the "punk" ethos, which you love to bring up. Not punk as in punk rock, but punk as in a little whipped bitch.
Have fun with your conspiratard theories and science bashing. The echo chamber must be comforting.
John
On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:12 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. You keep making the point that you are a stupid piece of shit.
You don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation. Also, given your support for statism one would wonder what the fuck you do in this list, apart from trolling.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 16:06:10 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> threw up:
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 05:11:03PM -0300, juan wrote: >> Let me point out though that your line of thinking that >> goes from "I like something" to "so it must be funded by the >> mafia" is not only nonsense, it's morally unaccpetable. > > If you find scientific advances that were made on the backs of > university research so morally reprehensible, why don't you try > living by your words, and unplug your fucking computer? > > For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from > hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some > tigers :P > > John
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:20:40 -0400 John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;)
Being done with you means not taking you seriously and not caring about what I write to you since you are a dishonest asshole anyway. For instance, now I'm going to bother replying to your first mental vomit, just because I feel like it. Let's assume for 'argumen's sake' that I am 'scientific' parasite working for your beloved state and that I ALSO criticize the 'scientific', state-funded, clown establishment of which I am a cog. Now, that certainly would make me an hypocrite and YET my criticisim would still be valid. Get it? And in the case of your first mental vomit (today) , even if you succesfully accused me of being an hypocrite (you didn't) my criticism would stand. Now, go pray to Holy Science to save you from the coming World Reheating Apocalypse.
On Nov 3, 2016, at 11:34 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:20:40 -0400 John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Hey - that's the second time you said you were "done" with me. After making a raft of bogus allegations. Interesting rhetorical technique ;)
Being done with you means not taking you seriously and not caring about what I write to you since you are a dishonest asshole anyway.
That's rich, coming from the biggest gaping asshole on this list, whose modus operandi is to scream the same dishonest attacks over and over..... (unless the so-called "STATIST" in question is of the Russian variety, in which case it's all good) <snip bullshit dialectics>
Now, go pray to Holy Science to save you from the coming World Reheating Apocalypse.
That's not quite how science works. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to understand that ;)
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:05 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
<snip bullshit dialectics>
Snip arguments you can't even start to refute. ('dialectics'? LMAO!!!!) "Let's assume for 'argumen's sake' that I am 'scientific' parasite working for your beloved state and that I ALSO criticize the 'scientific', state-funded, clown establishment of which I am a cog. Now, that certainly would make me an hypocrite and YET my criticisim would still be valid. Get it? And in the case of your first mental vomit (today) , even if you succesfully accused me of being an hypocrite (you didn't) my criticism would stand." Then again, you are a statist, pro-censorship scumbag john. No real reason to take you seriously.
Now, go pray to Holy Science to save you from the coming World Reheating Apocalypse.
That's not quite how science works. Obviously I wouldn't expect you to understand that ;)
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:05 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
(unless the so-called "STATIST" in question is of the Russian variety, in which case it's all good)
americunt fascist john newman is offended by russian propaganda? Yep, self-parody at its best. of course, americunt fascist john newman knows pretty well that his 'standard of living' is wholly dependent on state funded 'science' and american murder - so he wants americunt crimes to be ignored as much as possible while pointing the finger at all the other terrorists out there.... Hey john, why don't you move to the 'cryptography' mailing list? It's a censored, pro-establishment cesspool exactly the thing for the likes of you.
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:33:00PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:05 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
(unless the so-called "STATIST" in question is of the Russian variety, in which case it's all good)
americunt fascist john newman is offended by russian propaganda? Yep, self-parody at its best.
You're the attack dog who seems to lie down only when it comes to the constant barrage of Russian bullshit. I don't attack every single post to the list - in fact, I don't even read this list anymore, except on rare occasion. Self-parody? Yep. Look in the mirror, Juan. You are a fucking joke. Not even a funny joke, sadly =)
of course, americunt fascist john newman knows pretty well that his 'standard of living' is wholly dependent on state funded 'science' and american murder - so he wants americunt crimes to be ignored as much as possible while pointing the finger at all the other terrorists out there....
Acknowledging that science is real, and that I don't know EVERYTHING (something you are wholly incapable of doing) is not the same thing as being ... whatever the fuck you are trying to describe. Your description bears zero resemblance to myself, or to most of the people you've put it to. And it does get repetitive, watching Juan type "americunt" over and over and over... Particularly as I've never had a single good word to say for America, or any other nation state. As you know of course, you dishonest fuck.
Hey john, why don't you move to the 'cryptography' mailing list? It's a censored, pro-establishment cesspool exactly the thing for the likes of you.
I find it hilarious how much you disparage the crypto list. It's a cesspool? Have you seen the last 100 posts to this list? You're a fucking joke man. John
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:33:20 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 03:33:00PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 07:17:05 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
(unless the so-called "STATIST" in question is of the Russian variety, in which case it's all good)
americunt fascist john newman is offended by russian propaganda? Yep, self-parody at its best.
You're the attack dog who seems to lie down only when it comes to the constant barrage of Russian bullshit.
Again, you are the only one who cares about russian propaganda. I simply ignore it. But of course, I'm not going to do your job, you dumb lefty americunt. My beef is with scumbags like you - a me ri cunts. There are no pro-russia local facists in argentina. There are lots of pro-amerikkka fascists tho.
of course, americunt fascist john newman knows pretty well that his 'standard of living' is wholly dependent on state funded 'science' and american murder - so he wants americunt crimes to be ignored as much as possible while pointing the finger at all the other terrorists out there....
Acknowledging that science is real, and that I don't know EVERYTHING (something you are wholly incapable of doing) is not the same thing as being ... whatever the fuck you are trying to describe. Your description bears zero resemblance to myself, or to most of the people you've put it to. And it does get repetitive, watching Juan type "americunt" over and over and over...
americunts like you don't like to be called americunts - that's a great reason to point out that you are an ameriCUNT.
Particularly as I've never had a single good word to say for America, or any other nation state. As you know of course, you dishonest fuck.
As I said you are way more pro ameriKKKA than I'm pro russia. But since you are a dishonest fuck... =) Notice stupid scumbag how you both cheer for NATION STATE 'science' while denying that you are a pro nation state statist cunt. Yep, you are rather stupid john...
Hey john, why don't you move to the 'cryptography' mailing list? It's a censored, pro-establishment cesspool exactly the thing for the likes of you.
I find it hilarious how much you disparage the crypto list.
Yes, I fail to appreciate its cosmic virtue, namely CENSORSHIP. A virtue you fully embrace, like a good dumb americunt. Anyway, I had enough of your dishonest mental vomits. At least for today.
It's a cesspool? Have you seen the last 100 posts to this list? You're a fucking joke man.
John
On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:20 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: russian propaganda. I simply ignore it.
You certainly do. Blatant statist bullshit pours into and through the list and Juan the protector simply ignores it. But if someone mentions global warming.... or science at a professional level (and Russia has universities too), watch the fuck out. Someone's about to get called americunt =)
But of course, I'm not going to do your job, you dumb lefty americunt. My beef is with scumbags like you - a me ri cunts. There are no pro-russia local facists in argentina. There are lots of pro-amerikkka fascists tho.
Oh, I see. You have a remarkable ability to distinguish amongst and identify different types of fascists. It's good to know someone is keeping Argentina pure. (lol)
americunts like you don't like to be called americunts - that's a great reason to point out that you are an ameriCUNT.
And you're just a cunt, but I don't need to say it 13 times per message =).
Particularly as I've never had a single good word to say for America, or any other nation state. As you know of course, you dishonest fuck.
As I said you are way more pro ameriKKKA than I'm pro russia. But since you are a dishonest fuck... =)
You simply ignore Russian fascism - you just said so. You give it a pass. It doesn't bother you in the least. I'm not pro any nation state. I don't give Russia or America a pass. Again, you argue like a child, so I'm indulging you like a child.
Notice stupid scumbag how you both cheer for NATION STATE 'science' while denying that you are a pro nation state statist cunt.
Yep, you are rather stupid john...
I said : science is real. I don't know everything. And I implied there have been useful advances from university level sciences. I realize your chihuahua sized brain has problems with complex thoughts, but I wonder what part of that counts as cheerleading? Yep, you are completely full of shit Juan....
I find it hilarious how much you disparage the crypto list.
Yes, I fail to appreciate its cosmic virtue, namely CENSORSHIP. A virtue you fully embrace, like a good dumb americunt.
There is a difference between censorship and a moderated technical mailing list. Kind of like no sane person would give you commit privs to any source code, anywhere. The idea that an individual list admin's agency, in the configuration of their own software, is dictated by Juan and his central committee - that's fascism. But Ive pointed this out to you before. Again, I wouldn't expect your over excited little frontal lobe, clearly suffering from serious deformity, to understand. And I still invite the "cesspool" comparison. This list has become a fucking cesspool, aided and abetted by you and your comrades. John
On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 07:11:30 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:20 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: russian propaganda. I simply ignore it.
You certainly do. Blatant statist bullshit pours into and through the list and Juan the protector simply ignores it.
Yep, and that annoys people like you =) Notice that I'm not the only one in the list who isn't bothered by russian propaganda or that openly acknowledges that you americunts are the ones messing with the russians. You on the other hand seem to blatantly ignore the existence of your americunt empire and its actions...
But if someone mentions global warming.... or science at a professional level (and Russia has universities too), watch the fuck out. Someone's about to get called americunt =)
But of course, I'm not going to do your job, you dumb lefty americunt. My beef is with scumbags like you - a me ri cunts. There are no pro-russia local facists in argentina. There are lots of pro-amerikkka fascists tho.
Oh, I see. You have a remarkable ability to distinguish amongst and identify different types of fascists. It's good to know someone is keeping Argentina pure. (lol)
argentina is a fascist cesspool and virtual colonoy of your americunt empire - I never suggested there's anything 'pure' about argentina. Only a retard like you would get a different idea.
americunts like you don't like to be called americunts - that's a great reason to point out that you are an ameriCUNT.
And you're just a cunt, but I don't need to say it 13 times per message =).
your choice =)
Particularly as I've never had a single good word to say for America, or any other nation state. As you know of course, you dishonest fuck.
As I said you are way more pro ameriKKKA than I'm pro russia. But since you are a dishonest fuck... =)
You simply ignore Russian fascism - you just said so. You give it a pass. It doesn't bother you in the least.
I said I ignore the dumb russian propaganda on the list - That I give russian fascism a pass is just a lie on your part. And I'll remark again that some of it is not even propaganda. For instance, only dumb americunts would believe that the russians hacked the democratic fascist party. But no doubt, a fascist americunt would equate "not-believing-US-propaganda" with "giving-the-russians-a-pass"
I'm not pro any nation state. I don't give Russia or America a pass.
Too bad that's a blatant lie. You support state 'science', so you 'give a pass' to all nation states on the planet. You just do it in slightly underhanded way.
Again, you argue like a child, so I'm indulging you like a child.
lol...As if that was an insult.
Notice stupid scumbag how you both cheer for NATION STATE 'science' while denying that you are a pro nation state statist cunt.
Yep, you are rather stupid john...
I said :
science is real. I don't know everything. And I implied there have been useful advances from university level sciences.
Yes, and? All statist retards (like you) 'know' that given enough subsidies, the parasites who get them might do something 'useful' once in a while. So fucking what. I already addressed the point in the discussion with Tom. The very same discussion full of points you can counter, and which led you to start whining and call me a 'hypocrite' =)
I realize your chihuahua sized brain has problems with complex thoughts, but I wonder what part of that counts as cheerleading?
What are you doing, exactly, if not cheerleading for statist 'science' when all you have to reply to somebody criticizing it, is : "you are typying on a computer" (as if that meant anything). You should apply that line of 'reasoning' to yourself. ANY criticism of the establishment, done using ANY medium that fucktards like you think exist thanks to the state is invalid. Is the thought too complex for you? Again : Using anything that had anything to do with any subsidy invalidates any argument against the establishmet (in your deranged mind) And what's the logical conclusion of that absurd premise? Why, you either become a pro-establishment, or you are a 'hypocrite'. Are you going to call this 'dialectics'? Oh, wait : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dialectics " The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments." No wonder you would use 'dialectics' as a derogative term.
Yep, you are completely full of shit Juan....
I find it hilarious how much you disparage the crypto list.
Yes, I fail to appreciate its cosmic virtue, namely CENSORSHIP. A virtue you fully embrace, like a good dumb americunt.
There is a difference between censorship and a moderated technical mailing list.
You are sick piece of shit John =) You are seriously trying to 'argue' along the lines of "war is peace" and trying to sell CENSORSHIP by changing its name. That's both highly stupid and obviously a core totalitarian value that one would think is not a 'cypherpunk' value. Who else advocates 'moderation' aka censorship here? Why, your fascist american brother quinn. That should tell you something....
Kind of like no sane person would give you commit privs to any source code, anywhere.
The idea that an individual list admin's agency, in the configuration of their own software, is dictated by Juan and his central committee - that's fascism.
Sure. Free specech is fascism. That's the kind of thought that fascist cunts like you freely utter with a straight face. Only americunt anti-culture can produce bots like you John =) It's also funny that you are fully aligned with the most right-wing right wingers and their "my home my rules" slogan.
But Ive pointed this out to you before.
Again, I wouldn't expect your over excited little frontal lobe, clearly suffering from serious deformity, to understand.
And I still invite the "cesspool" comparison. This list has become a fucking cesspool, aided and abetted by you and your comrades.
Damn, Progressive American John is threatened by the russians! Call homeland security and maccarthy now!!!
John
Wow, you really took an interest in the fact that I used the word dialectics. Did you learn a new word? All your repeated dishonest blathering has gotten repetitive (big fucking surprise). I leave you to your cesspool =). Enjoy it, you pedantic twit. John
On Nov 5, 2016, at 2:53 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 07:11:30 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2016, at 5:20 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: russian propaganda. I simply ignore it.
You certainly do. Blatant statist bullshit pours into and through the list and Juan the protector simply ignores it.
Yep, and that annoys people like you =)
Notice that I'm not the only one in the list who isn't bothered by russian propaganda or that openly acknowledges that you americunts are the ones messing with the russians.
You on the other hand seem to blatantly ignore the existence of your americunt empire and its actions...
But if someone mentions global warming.... or science at a professional level (and Russia has universities too), watch the fuck out. Someone's about to get called americunt =)
But of course, I'm not going to do your job, you dumb lefty americunt. My beef is with scumbags like you - a me ri cunts. There are no pro-russia local facists in argentina. There are lots of pro-amerikkka fascists tho.
Oh, I see. You have a remarkable ability to distinguish amongst and identify different types of fascists. It's good to know someone is keeping Argentina pure. (lol)
argentina is a fascist cesspool and virtual colonoy of your americunt empire - I never suggested there's anything 'pure' about argentina. Only a retard like you would get a different idea.
americunts like you don't like to be called americunts - that's a great reason to point out that you are an ameriCUNT.
And you're just a cunt, but I don't need to say it 13 times per message =).
your choice =)
Particularly as I've never had a single good word to say for America, or any other nation state. As you know of course, you dishonest fuck.
As I said you are way more pro ameriKKKA than I'm pro russia. But since you are a dishonest fuck... =)
You simply ignore Russian fascism - you just said so. You give it a pass. It doesn't bother you in the least.
I said I ignore the dumb russian propaganda on the list - That I give russian fascism a pass is just a lie on your part.
And I'll remark again that some of it is not even propaganda. For instance, only dumb americunts would believe that the russians hacked the democratic fascist party.
But no doubt, a fascist americunt would equate "not-believing-US-propaganda" with "giving-the-russians-a-pass"
I'm not pro any nation state. I don't give Russia or America a pass.
Too bad that's a blatant lie. You support state 'science', so you 'give a pass' to all nation states on the planet. You just do it in slightly underhanded way.
Again, you argue like a child, so I'm indulging you like a child.
lol...As if that was an insult.
Notice stupid scumbag how you both cheer for NATION STATE 'science' while denying that you are a pro nation state statist cunt.
Yep, you are rather stupid john...
I said :
science is real. I don't know everything. And I implied there have been useful advances from university level sciences.
Yes, and? All statist retards (like you) 'know' that given enough subsidies, the parasites who get them might do something 'useful' once in a while. So fucking what.
I already addressed the point in the discussion with Tom. The very same discussion full of points you can counter, and which led you to start whining and call me a 'hypocrite' =)
I realize your chihuahua sized brain has problems with complex thoughts, but I wonder what part of that counts as cheerleading?
What are you doing, exactly, if not cheerleading for statist 'science' when all you have to reply to somebody criticizing it, is :
"you are typying on a computer" (as if that meant anything).
You should apply that line of 'reasoning' to yourself. ANY criticism of the establishment, done using ANY medium that fucktards like you think exist thanks to the state is invalid.
Is the thought too complex for you? Again : Using anything that had anything to do with any subsidy invalidates any argument against the establishmet (in your deranged mind)
And what's the logical conclusion of that absurd premise? Why, you either become a pro-establishment, or you are a 'hypocrite'.
Are you going to call this 'dialectics'? Oh, wait :
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dialectics
" The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments."
No wonder you would use 'dialectics' as a derogative term.
Yep, you are completely full of shit Juan....
I find it hilarious how much you disparage the crypto list.
Yes, I fail to appreciate its cosmic virtue, namely CENSORSHIP. A virtue you fully embrace, like a good dumb americunt.
There is a difference between censorship and a moderated technical mailing list.
You are sick piece of shit John =)
You are seriously trying to 'argue' along the lines of "war is peace" and trying to sell CENSORSHIP by changing its name.
That's both highly stupid and obviously a core totalitarian value that one would think is not a 'cypherpunk' value.
Who else advocates 'moderation' aka censorship here? Why, your fascist american brother quinn. That should tell you something....
Kind of like no sane person would give you commit privs to any source code, anywhere.
The idea that an individual list admin's agency, in the configuration of their own software, is dictated by Juan and his central committee - that's fascism.
Sure. Free specech is fascism. That's the kind of thought that fascist cunts like you freely utter with a straight face. Only americunt anti-culture can produce bots like you John =)
It's also funny that you are fully aligned with the most right-wing right wingers and their "my home my rules" slogan.
But Ive pointed this out to you before.
Again, I wouldn't expect your over excited little frontal lobe, clearly suffering from serious deformity, to understand.
And I still invite the "cesspool" comparison. This list has become a fucking cesspool, aided and abetted by you and your comrades.
Damn, Progressive American John is threatened by the russians! Call homeland security and maccarthy now!!!
John
On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 23:17:13 -0400 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Wow, you really took an interest in the fact that I used the word dialectics. Did you learn a new word?
Yes, thank you ;)
All your repeated dishonest blathering has gotten repetitive (big fucking surprise).
I'm really sorry I failed to entertain you - My sincere apologies.
I leave you to your cesspool =). Enjoy it, you pedantic twit.
John
On 11/03/2016 01:06 PM, John Newman wrote:
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
I always love that extreme overarching generalization by technocrats about what one should do in the way of rejecting technology before one can discuss it. I have parts of the above down... ... or minimized to as near a third world level as is possible in a consumer crapitalist society. Except the tiger part. I have raccoons and the occasional rat possum or skunk at my camp even if I never bring food there. At least these critters don't think I'M food. Rr
I should've said cave lions, not tigers - was a reference to earlier email where Juan made "quick work" (heh) of Tom for pointing out a few scientific links. John On November 3, 2016 9:58:28 PM EDT, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 11/03/2016 01:06 PM, John Newman wrote:
For that matter, get rid of your electricity, stay away from hospitals, and go live in the woods.... you can hunt some tigers :P
I always love that extreme overarching generalization by technocrats about what one should do in the way of rejecting technology before one can discuss it. I have parts of the above down... ... or minimized to as near a third world level as is possible in a consumer crapitalist society. Except the tiger part. I have raccoons and the occasional rat possum or skunk at my camp even if I never bring food there. At least these critters don't think I'M food.
Rr
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
Additionally, science is not without limits. We, as scientists, cannot perform experiments that harm people. We also cannot perform experiments without consent.
Moral actors can impose such limits on themselves. Science, unfortunately, has no such inherent limits. To deny this, and the abuses we see in the world, is to deny reality.
I would also suggest that our ethics should include avoiding projects that harm the people, such as creating mass surveillence systems and facilitating the violation of basic human rights. If we perform such research, we should also include counter-measures to preserve the balance of power. Scientific research influences all of society, and should therefore consider ethics before publication.
Although most humans probably consider themselves moral actors, the sad fact is mostly humans leave the moral decision making up to their employers and or investors and or the government, and take what they can making endless excuses such as: - someone else can fix it - I've got too much on my plate to focus on moral issues right now - "one day" I'll write a better system and give it to "the community" - it's not really that bad - someone else would do it (and get paid to do it) anyway - it's too upsetting to think about - stop bothering me!
In short, science and the scientific process is not truly the enemy.
Humans failing to exercise moral / conscionable action is the problem.
Currently, however, the system has been corrupted by wealthy players who abuse it for personal gain.
In a way. Fundamentally, the majority of humans abdicate their moral activity, abdicate their conscience, abdicate any self responsibility for their part in the game. This is rather universal in the West today.
If you have not read the paper I mentioned in my previous email, I really do suggest giving it a read. Rogaway argues many different points in the paper, many of which I haven't covered in my emails.
And almost all of which are almost completely irrelevant to improving this world. The "Western world" desperately needs moral actors, rather than any more "science" to be profitted by the oligarchs.
On Oct 25, 2016 12:59 AM, "Tom" <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
The point of science is to find answers to open questions and by doing so gain knowledge. Seriously, science is not the enemy. It were not the enemy in 1641 and it isn't today.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:36:30 -0400 Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:
Hello all, "scientist" (PhD candidate) here in the field of computer science and cyber security.
Most of the scientists I have encountered are not totally malicious, just oblivious to the moral, ethical and political consequences of their work. They are blind enough to believe that their "advances" help society, despite them actually shifting the balance of power away from the people.
There are a few, however, who do what they can to shift power back into the hands of the people. I was greatly influenced by a paper by Phil Rogaway entitled "On the moral character of cryptographic work," and I try my best to do research that works for the benefit of the people, not governments or wealthy power holders. Only time will tell if I am successful, but I will do my best.
There are others who also work with morals in mind. It is not so black and white as "scientists are evil people working for fascists." They are just unaware of the consequences of their work.
That lack of awareness is certainly one of the problems but not the only one. Even forgetting for a second any moral implications, it is a fact that people working in the scientific establishment have strong incentives to 'go with the flow' in order to keep the grants coming. A couple more points. I don't think the majority of people working in the scientific establishment deserve to be called scientists. Those people are not interested in any fundamental truth. They are more like technicians following a manual. *You* are aware of the political consequences of your technical work because you are interested in truth in a more general sense. They are not. And what I was getting at is that Tom's view according to which a 'conspiracy' involving 'every' single 'scientist' is impossible, is a misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs. To use internet slang, he's setting up a 'straw man'. And lastly, I did mention the existence of dissenters. But by definition, dissenters are not part of scientific consensus =P
On Oct 24, 2016 3:06 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:58:24 +0200 Tom <tom@vondein.org> wrote:
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites,
It's obvious that all 'scieniists' working for the state are parasites working for fascist states. Perhaps you need to research the nature of the political system you live in a bit more?
or idiots, who are the sane people left?
Only you, the russians and the Juan's out there?
C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
I thought it was clear that any dissenter gets silenced or ignored. So you could have saved yourself the misrepresentatin. It's not 'every' one, just the majority.
On the other hand, I'm familiar with 'libertarian' anti-conspiracy bullshit, so you could save it too for...other audiences.
What next? Reptiles governing us? Earth is flat? Bielefeld doesn't exist?
Fuckers. Indeed.
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
The only conspiracy is that they all seem to think my forefathers and mothers are apes. It's THAT kind of conspiracy that caused people to bomb America in 9-11. Mark
On 10/28/2016 12:07 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
The only conspiracy is that they all seem to think my forefathers and mothers are apes.
It's THAT kind of conspiracy that caused people to bomb America in 9-11.
I'm not sure what your point is. First, it's not clear who bombed the US then. Let's say that it was Al-Qaeda and Saudi supporters. As far as I can tell, they were mostly upset at lack of respect from US and its allies. Lack of respect for their religion, their culture, and their sovereignty. But you wrote "THAT kind of conspiracy". So are you disputing the evidence for evolution? Or are you disputing claims that some ethnic groups tend to score better or worse on various tests? As far as evolution goes, it may be far worse than apes. Think mice, rats and pigs. It's no accident that they're favorite experimental models for humans. When you can't afford primates, anyway. And we humans do behave a lot like rats :(
Mark
On 10/28/2016 12:07 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
But if all politicians, all employers, all teachers, all scientists and so on are fascists, parasites, or idiots, who are the sane people left? C'mon, nobody can be that stupid to really think that EVERY scientist is part of a global multi cultural, multi societal, multi language conspiracy!
The only conspiracy is that they all seem to think my forefathers and mothers are apes.
It's THAT kind of conspiracy that caused people to bomb America in 9-11.
I'm not sure what your point is. First, it's not clear who bombed the US then. Let's say that it was Al-Qaeda and Saudi supporters. As far as I can tell, they were mostly upset at lack of respect from US and its allies. Lack of respect for their religion, their culture, and their sovereignty.
Not quite. There's a point where there is no more room, no more degrees of freedom, to protect oneself because of the phenomenon of collective consciousness -- the force that allows animals, for example, to know each other unmistakenly across the whole kingdom without language. It is this common heart which separates mammals from reptiles, for example. The dramatic shift from will-based order to heart-based. But this is all controversial to your orthodox science. Nonetheless, it is and remains true.
But you wrote "THAT kind of conspiracy". So are you disputing the evidence for evolution? Or are you disputing claims that some ethnic groups tend to score better or worse on various tests?
I am negating the evidence for *human* evolution, because I have better knowledge about how science deluded itself. There was a human before mammals, hence the common "DNA". There are at least two dimensions of time, just as string theory suggested. One of them is certainly the Biblical timeline as you can follow the Gregorian timeline back from 2016AD towards and beyond 0BC and see that it doesn't go back to men living in caves.
As far as evolution goes, it may be far worse than apes. Think mice, rats and pigs. It's no accident that they're favorite experimental models for humans. When you can't afford primates, anyway. And we humans do behave a lot like rats :(
Think, rather, prima facie. What makes everyone confused is that we had the bones of a prior Age right from Adam and Eve. But again, if you've removed a piece of evidence out of the equation merely because it is unpopular (mostly stemming from old blood from the time of Galileo), then you won't be convinced. Eventually, however, there will be no way to defend man as descending from apes. Damn the medical establishment for corrupting the whole human genome with the immense power it has over "health" that has made everyone LITERALLY insane, clinically so. \0x
On 10/24/2016 11:34 AM, coresamples@sigaint.org wrote a plagiarism: "The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved." ~John Anthony West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_West
Juan: Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists.
The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved.
To put it into other terms:
If you want happiness in this crazy world, you do not talk sex to eunuchs.
These "scientists" are emotional, spiritual, and philisophical eunuchs.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 06:34:20PM -0000, coresamples@sigaint.org wrote:
Juan: Your climate 'scientists' are highly paid university parasites, pandering to 'progressive' eco fascists.
The church of "progress" is the religion of the emotionally defective, the spiritually dyslexic, and the philosophically depraved.
And besides, as Juan and others have pointed out many times, at least some so-called "science" is well and truly sullied by the politics which surrounds it. Just in today is a classic example from here in Australia: Malcolm Roberts is a recently elected Australian senator (One Nation), wanting to ask a few questions of the 'witnesses' to a certain Australian "Treaties Committee" about their looming decision to (presumably) ratify the "Paris Climate Agreement". ----- Subject: Submissions Climate Change Senator Malcolm Roberts Malcolm Roberts My submissions (No. 38, see here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/Paris... ( short link: http://ow.ly/gCzo305UGLL ) ) to the Treaties Committee who are considering the destructive Paris Climate Agreement. NOTE: On Friday 30 September 2016 I wrote to the committee Chair, on advice of the committee secretariat, and asked that I be allowed to question witnesses at the Committee’s hearing. Despite advice that the committee could vote to grant such a request, my application was denied. The information in this submission is limited as my ability to obtain fulsome information from committee witnesses was stymied. ----- End forwarded message -----
participants (13)
-
\0xDynamite -
coresamples＠sigaint.org -
grarpamp -
John -
John Newman
-
juan -
Kevin Gallagher -
Kevin Gallagher -
Mirimir -
Peter Fairbrother -
Razer -
Tom -
Zenaan Harkness