Public Dissentiment

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 27 13:46:05 PST 2017


On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:54:41 -0500
John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:


> > > 
> > > Someone who doesn't buy into a particular conspiracy does not
> > > (necessarily) share any traits with the religious whack jobs that
> > > burned witches at the stake. They were driven by ignorance and
> > > religious fervor.
> > 
> > 	Not really. Witch hunting, although a time honored
> > joo-kristian tradition, isn't driven by ignorance. It's a political
> > 	phenomenom (like religion itself). People who don't parrot
> > the 'community's' party line are treated like criminals, or are
> > 	considered 'sick' and need to be 'cured'.
> > 
> > 	Of course, the hunters don't have any rational argument,
> > 	but that's not the same thing, at all, as being ignorant.
> > They are not just 'ignorant'. They are 'ignorant' on purpose.
> > 
> 
> Whatever, you get my point.


	No, I don't get your point. What I seem to get quite well is
	that you are purposedly ignoring MY point(s).





> 
> > 	
> > 
> > > 
> > > It seems you would like to have it both ways - denying the
> > > validity of science when it suits you, and at the same time using
> > > your own brand of scientific speculation to support a particular
> > > conspiracy,
> > 
> > 
> > 	Except I never denied the validity of science. If anything, 
> > 	what you said describes you better than it describes me. 
> > 
> > 	The problem is that when you say Science, you are not really
> > 	talking about a rational search for truth, which is also
> > known as philosophjy. You are mostly talking about the
> > 	establishment's party line, with a 'scientific' veneer. 
> 
> That's not at all what I'm talking about. You aren't the arbiter of
> all that is correct.


	Neither are you nor your state-funded 'scientific' mafia. And
	your reply is just hand waving.



> 
> > 
> > 
> > > again when it suits you. Either science is real, or it isn't.
> > > Hint: science and the scientific method are fucking real. 
> > 
> > 
> > 	I never said that truth and rational inquiry are not
> > 'real'. 
> > 
> 
> You've made plenty of outrageous claims - that global warming is a
> hoax, 

	That's an outragous claim for people like you. LMAO at you. You
	are the poster child for circular 'reasoning'. 


> that children can't suffer from cognitive disabilities, etc. 

	I never said that.

	So again, disagreeing with your stupid enviro propganda that
	comes straight out of your fucking americunt nazi state doesn't
	make me a bible thumper. 

	Did I ever mention that your blind faith in state science means
	you are a lot closer to bible thumpers than I am? 





> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Huge mistakes in medical sciences have most definitely been made, 
> > 
> > 	Mistakes? Are you referring to the 'mistakes' of the
> > 'medical' 'science' of psychiatry? As I explained above those are
> > not mistakes. 
> 
> There have been mistakes besides atrocities like the lobotomy. 

	Not mistakes. 'Curing' gays was not a mistake. And looks like
	you are an accomplice of the shitbags who did that kind of
	thing, by pretending they were not criminals but poor
	'mistaken' altruists or something.


> Early
> experimentation with radiation, heparin adulteration out of china,

	AH the evil chinese. What the fuck has that got to do with
	'science', fake or legitimate? 

	


> exploding breast implants, all sorts of toxic shit before the FDA came
> around, etc, etc. 

	Before the FDA came around. Spoken like a True American
	Anarchist eh John. Tsk tsk. You seem to be showing your true
	statist colors. 

	By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your
	Progressive Scientifc Anarchist FDA. 

	




> 
> > 
> > 	And if you believe that rational inquiry can lead to that
> > sort of 'mistake' you don't really understand what rational inquiry
> > 	is, and you are in no position to lecture me or anynody else
> > 	about 'science'.
> > 
> 
> Rational inquiry is what leads to the correction of mistakes. I would
> think that is obvious.
> 

	
	What is obvious to me is that you are either unable to
	understand what I'm saying, or ignoring it on purpose. I think
	it's more the later than the former.
 





> > 
> > 
> > > but
> > > they tend to be self correcting over time. That's how science
> > > works. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list