Topic: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? - page 3. (Read 18486 times)

Well, either my english is worse than i thought or you interpreted something into what i wrote that i did not write. I suggested to check out wikipedia and mentioned, that if someone doesn't want to trust wikipedia being a relatively good source of info that then there are not much alternatives. You have to follow the truths others present you.

How you were able to wrap your mind around the idea that i suggested to trust the ideas of companies and governments is beyond my understanding. In fact it should have been pretty clear to you that your thought was wrong. So either you did not care or you really thought somehow i suggested that. But again... how you could get that idea is beyond my understanding.


Well, you think you need to be of the opposite opinion only because a company has the same opinion? That would be a hard way to life. These companies obviously understand that bitcoin only can survive with adoption and that is only possible with bigger blocks. I surely won't say we need 1mb blocks only because companies found out that it is in their best interest to let bitcoin survive by raising blocksize limit.

I never wrote you need to trust wikipedia, only that there are the answers to the theories of the climate change sceptics. You can read it and follow it. That's all i said.

I'm not sure why you think you need to go farther than i went. I don't really care if you falsely assume i did think or say something i didn't actually say.

None of those that have great power have any responsibility at all, therefore they dont deserve any power at all.

This could be applied to some bitcoin developers too, they can be wreckless too.

lmfaooo

We?! you are so funny!

Which is a ridiculous argument. The CO2 proportion increased by 50% in a short time. It is irrelevant that its portion as a percentage of the atmosphere is small. What is relevant is how many reflective gases retain the heat.

LOL, Marxist. The Marxists represent the frontists on the other side of the collectivist front in the stadium. A fight of right wing vs. left wing collectivists; judean peoples front against the peoples front of Judea. We, the punks and anarchists live beyond those collectivist-statist clowns. We have nothing in common with such ridiculous collectivist behavior and character.

Yes, that is the usual litany of NF's sins against political correctness, which you Marxist tranzis trot out at every opportunity.

Oh wait, you accidentally forgot to include two more of NF's canonical offenses, namely islamophobia and xenophobia.

Is there a reason you'd suddenly stop including islamophobia and xenophobia in the usual litany of NF's unforgivable transgressions?

Socialist, collectivist, and statist are three different words, but in the context of France pretty much mean the same thing.

Why not include the less redundant, much more unique pejoratives 'islamophobia" and "xenophobia?'

Has something recently happened to make the hard-left bullet words 'islamophobia' and 'xenophobia' less effective at denigrating NF?

I'm trying to remember exactly what could have occurred to make you hesitate to include 'islamophobia' and 'xenophobia' in the standard 2 Minutes Hate.

Let me take a wild guess.  Did you stop using the SJW's 'islamophobia' and 'xenophobia' slurs to defame NF because of this?




Or did you conveniently drop 'islamophobia' and 'xenophobia' from your go-to list of nasty things to call NF because of this?









Funny how until a few days ago, 'islamophobia' and 'xenophobia' where according to the pinkos the worst things about NF.

But now those accusations are forgotten, and NF is demonized for what, being protectionist and socialist (like 90% of France)?

Such utter cowardice.  Such deplorable inconsistency.  Such an obvious shift in advocacy.  Such pious hypocrisy.  Such intellectual fraud.


Le Pen is going to rock the vote, and I'm going to rub her victory in your face.  Every.  Chance.  I.  Get.   

So much fear. Fear comes from hate. You should let go of this hate you're carrying. It isn't healthy.

When you're ready, we'll be here to accept you.

Talking about global warming

The funny thing is that usually politicians only care about 4 years into the future, yet when it comes to climate, they all care about what will happen in about 500,000 years.

What a double standard.

I think there is room to accommodate both your view (which resembles mine) and iCEBREAKERs.

iCE is coming from the perspective that CO₂ hasn't increased to the extent that it is in any way accountable for recent measurable temperature variations; I'm inclined to agree, +0.01% increase really isn't much, desert fringes become less marginal as plants survive better on increased CO₂ density, arrogant humans say "save the planet" when they mean "save the planet so we can keep living there" etc etc

But Taleb sums up the position I've taken pretty well. The climate change hand wavers say "lets geo-engineer like crazy!". And skeptics retort "there is no planet B if your experiment with climate engineering fails". And so the skeptics can't have it both ways: if there is no Earth B to migrate to in the event of geo-engineered climate disaster, then it makes equal sense to limit or eliminate all industrial/private emissions on the basis of the same principle. Economic externalities are a real thing, even if determined on a scale of probability (which only makes sense on a global level IMO).

I accept Taleb's position. Since we do not know exactly how the climate will change when we change the composition of the atmosphere, we should conclude to be super-green, which is the opposite position of the truthers, bible throwers, nationalists and other right wing 'living' jokes. They claim that mankind can't disrupt the climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere. Stupidity in perfection.

Taleb's position and postulate of being super-green as a consequence is certainly not iCEBREAKER's postulate:

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

I feel a disturbance in the force.  The dark side lies waiting, inciting fear and confusion upon the masses.  Deception is their weapon.  Clouded, the truth is.

Well, if you actually accept that, then why are you arguing with me? Or iCEBREAKER? 

why so stupid?!

Rightwing socialists/collectivists/frontists/statists.

Unbelievable. You can't read. I didn't say 'global warming will kill us all'. Another outright lie. I said we do not know how the climate of the atmosphere will change when we change its components. Your discussing tactics are among the most dishonest here.

I hope this isn't too off-topic for a thread about Climate Change, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be a bit of a Frontaphobe. I don't want to be too judgmental, because maybe you've had bad experiences with the French. But you shouldn't give in to fear-mongering lies. The vast majority of supporters of the Front National are peaceful people who are proud of their heritage.

If being crazy is necessary to effectively mine an accurate picture of reality from the sea of media (including social media) propaganda and deceit, there are some of us who fit that mold.

There are probably many others who have a nagging sense that the eco movement who were responsible for amazing progress in helping halt and turn back the destruction of the planet have been taken over by ugly power players, but are not ready to admit it at this time.  Every day more and more people cross over this line and are willing to call a spade a spade.  In my case, the importance I placed in the need to stop fucking up the planet is proportional to the disgust I have at this new corporate-green leadership structure.  I doubt that I am atypical in this.

Are you blind?

Those sentences literally sum up my position perfectly, and you're still all "global warming will kill us all"

Are you crazy?