Public Dissentiment

John Newman jnn at synfin.org
Mon Jan 30 04:12:06 PST 2017


> On Jan 28, 2017, at 11:31 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

I disagree, for the most part, on this particular issue. The factions seem to me to be a tiny percentage of scientists willing to stand with the "oil mafia", vs the vast majority who seem to me to be standing with the science. Even if the democrats at least profess belief in this existential issue, what did they ever really do about it? Anything of consequence? I don't think the factions break down like you imagine, and I don't give the democrats much credit simply for refusing to deny the issue.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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. 
> 

Ok, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Obviously this is a disgusting blemish on the history of "scientific inquiry" ;) ... I don't put much stock in psychology personally, despite what you may think.


> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 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'. 
> 

Yes, many of them were criminal acts, no doubt, with financial pressure pushing legit science aside and causing atrocities. I won't bother with another list, you can gaagle it yourself ;) In any case, they were still mistakes.

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

I wouldn't argue with that.  I do figure there are a lot more principled scientists out there than you think, but I don't pretend to know the numbers.

> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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? 
> 

It certainly improved the chances of not being sold toxic snake oil. All your bullshit from here on out trying to paint me as a statist because I stated a fact is just that - so much bullshit.


>> 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."
> 
> 

I'm an American, we only speak English, remember?  My point stands (I haven't bothered to translate your German yet, it was a long weekend, and my head is killing me ...)

>> 
>>>   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 knew you'd jump all over the progress line as soon as I sent it ;).  Poorly worded, but again my point stands. As I said before I would want some sort of opt in drugs inspection in whatever anarchist utopia I can imagine. Mentioning the FDA doesn't make me a statist. But I realize how much you love jumping all over such small minded pedantic bullshit and I'm happy you found something you think is such a powerful point ;)

>    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.    
> 
> 


YW.


> 
>>> 
>>>   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. 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 22474 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170130/85dc1185/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list