Public Dissentiment

[juan]

me: 
> >    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.
> > 

John:
> Yes you did. In fact you called me a nazi after describing a young
> girl whom my girlfriend was the caretaker of who was profoundly
> disabled by asperger's syndrome. She couldn't talk, etc.. i'm not
> getting into it again, please just leave it alone.
> 
> >    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. 
> > 
> 
> 
> How ducking retarded are you? The us republican government DOES NOT
> believe in anthropogenic climate change. You are right in line with
> Trump and his cronies.


	OK. Allegedly, the trump mafia, which is a subset of
	the us gov't mafia, doesn't believe in global warming. I say
	'allegedly' because I would be hardly surprised if they
	flip-floped. But fine, for the time being they are on the
	payroll of the oil mafia (oops a 'conspiracy theory')

	However, other factions of the us gov't do believe in 'climate
	change'. So my claim "you get your  propaganda from the
	gov't" is still valid (more accurately, the source is a faction
	within the gov't) - If I'm in line with the repuglicans, then
	you are in line with the democrats. 

	But OK, I see how you can turn my argument around and say that
	I'm a shill for shell and exxon (and aramco I guess). Even if
	you do that, my general point still stands. The 'climate
	change' faction IS a faction. They are not honest and
	'objective' 'scientists'. They are playing a political game.
	And 'science' has always been manipulated by political
	interests. Something you seem to completely ignore.



> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> I never said that or even implied it. Was "curing" gays ever accepted
> as science by anyone, anywhere? 


	So you actucally don't have a clue about what 'scientists'
	used to say? Here's ONE fucking datapoint for you. 

	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_in_LGBT_rights

	"The World Health Organisation declassifies homosexuality as a
	mental illness in the latest edition of its list of diseases
	and health problems, the ICD-10." 

	Now, was that 1992 BEFORE FUCKING CHRIST or after? I'm not
	goind to do more of your homework. You gaagle the rest. 


> 
> 
> >> 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? 
> > 
> >    
> 
> 
> Maybe mistakes is the wrong word for some of those examples - you
> love to pick at things with your pedantic little mind. The point is
> there have been all sorts of fuck ups in the history of medicine, and
> rational inquiry AKA science is how they get solved.


	Keep up with your bullshit. You are doing exactly what I say
	you are doing. You are making excuses for people who are
	corrupt to the bone. The 'mistakes' (your word) or now 'fuck
	ups' are not 'mistakes'. 

	'Science' when done by people is not guaranteed at all to
	really be science. It obviously can be political propaganda. 


> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> >> 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. 
> > 
> 
> Tsk tsk all you want dickhead, it's a fact. All sorts of toxic shit
> was passed off prior to the fda (and after, for that matter). 

	So you just contradicted yourself in two senteces? Can't 
	you make up your mind? =) Does the american anarchist FDA
	'work' or not? 

> My
> anarchist utopia will have some sort of opt-in dope inspection line,
> but I'm happy for you to die of arsenic poisoning in yours.

	'Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis
	macht, das ein Ding kein Gift ist."


> 
> >    By the way, radioactive 'cures' were aproved by your
> >    Progressive Scientifc Anarchist FDA. 
> > 
> >    
> 
> 
> So what? Nobody said the FDA was perfect, or even close. It's called
> progress.


	OK. So what you are saying is not only that statism works, but
	also that it is progressing towards perfection !!?

	I don't think I can give you any more rope =) ...



> 
> Everything has to turn into a fucking insult fest with you Juan.
> You're not an enjoyable person to discourse with. You aren't scum
> like Zen and James Donald, but you have some fucking social issues.


	Thanks for the compliment.	



> > 
> >    Do you think that the people who run the US central bank (or
> >    any other central bank), and all the 'economists' from 'very
> >    important' universities who take central banks and money
> >    printing for granted, are 'scientists'? Are so called
> >    'keynesian' 'economists' 'scientists'? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> No. It's a "field" that can be gamed and manipulated using analytical
> techniques, but fundamentally it would fall more in line as a form of
> sociology or some other study of people. Economic policy is dictated
> by the barrel of the gun, rules and charters and guidelines written
> out by corporate interests and enforced by the various governments in
> a very transparent attempt at keeping the rich man (and nation) rich
> and the poor man (and nation) poor. 


	Indeed. The economic policy of the state and its cronies is
	completely self-serving. But the people in academia who pretend
	to provide 'academic' justifications for it are seen as the most
	capable and altruistic intellectuals engaging in some sort of
	objective and rational endeavor.

	Of course the economics of money printing are self-serving
	voodoo and there's a small group of 'dissenters' among
	economists who say so.

	I brought this uo because it is another (current) example of the
	established, reputable and academic sector getting away with
	murder. And even if mainstream economics isn't seen as hard
	science like physics, it is still regarded as legitimate
	discipline. 



	

> I have no deep understanding or
> insights on this subject (nor much interest) but these are the
> thoughts off the top of my head. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    
> > 
>