Sixgun vs HawkHybrid

[Notafront4adragon]

3 minutes ago, Platinum said:

I came here to contradict, not to argue.

No you didn't.

[Xander]

If you want to continue arguing on this thread you will have to upgrade your membership.😋

[Notafront4adragon]

Just now, Xander said:

If you want to continue arguing on this thread you will have to upgrade your membership.😋

Omg. Yes! Juicy stuff you gotta pay. 

[Platinum]

I reckon it is a good thing. Still it feels good to go on a troll spree once a year or so!

Time to get some shut eye!

[Notafront4adragon]

7 minutes ago, Platinum said:

I reckon it is a good thing. Still it feels good to go on a troll spree once a year or so!

Time to get some shut eye!

It is a Saturday evening, not even 10pm, lightweight!!

[Platinum]

Yeah I know but I cba playing a leftist all evening! Still, was fun to troll around a bit as it so seldomly happens these days.

[silenceissilver]

The Troll is confronated with arguments, you might agree or not, that doesn't even matter at this point but it's some arguments and if they are bad, they should be all the easier to dismantle.

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340235

And he responds

"A post of nonsense dressed up as an intellectual post. Christ are you all like this on here?"

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340237

 

Then turns reality upside down and plays the vicitm:

"interesting how you pick out my posts despite me being under attack and insulted by other members repeatedly for holding a different view to theirs."

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340269

He thinks socialism is the best way forward:

"Socialism is an interesting construct and probably the fairest political ideology,"

And then calls other people far right

"No thanks my far right friend."

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340295

Of course, because from the far left point of view, everything right of Lenin is far right.

 

And he downplays the murder of 100 Million people. And this is really despicable and antihuman. Absolutely disgusting!

But what do you expect, he is a socialist!

"socialism has not killed 10000000 or whatever"

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340182

 

 

[silenceissilver]

Just now, silenceissilver said:

The Troll is confronated

But on the other hand, I have a typo already in my first line, so I guess the troll must be right.

[Notafront4adragon]

13 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

But on the other hand, I have a typo already in my first line, so I guess the troll must be right.

To troll refers to fishing not the mythical creatures. Ergo you can't have "the troll" as you suggest.

Only a crazed person would think otherwise.

[silenceissilver]

4 minutes ago, zhoutonged said:

Re Socialism being responsible for millions of deaths. Am I alone in noticing how many left wing types believe in man made Global Warming which leads them into holding the view there are too many people in the World? Ive heard people things such as "we need another cull", "sorry but people need to die" etc etc with alarming frequency.

With so many young people attending Socialist indoctrination Centres sorry Universities I wonder how long before Socialism kills again

Climate socialism is the worst form of socialism. The demands effectively mean you have to deindustrialize the planet which means billions of people would starve to death.

[Notafront4adragon]

1 hour ago, silenceissilver said:

The Troll is confronated with arguments, you might agree or not, that doesn't even matter at this point but it's some arguments and if they are bad, they should be all the easier to dismantle.

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340235

And he responds

"A post of nonsense dressed up as an intellectual post. Christ are you all like this on here?"

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340237

 

Then turns reality upside down and plays the vicitm:

"interesting how you pick out my posts despite me being under attack and insulted by other members repeatedly for holding a different view to theirs."

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340269

He thinks socialism is the best way forward:

"Socialism is an interesting construct and probably the fairest political ideology,"

And then calls other people far right

"No thanks my far right friend."

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340295

Of course, because from the far left point of view, everything right of Lenin is far right.

 

And he downplays the murder of 100 Million people. And this is really despicable and antihuman. Absolutely disgusting!

But what do you expect, he is a socialist!

"socialism has not killed 10000000 or whatever"

https://thesilverforum.com/topic/29729-sixgun-vs-hawkhybrid/?do=findComment&comment=340182

 

 

Also name a political system that doesn't have blood on it's hands through both policy and direct action. His point, I believe, was it was human actions, and the need to control people that killed others. Capitalism, which I presume you are in favour of, has by that reasoning certainly killed as many if not more in the same time frame both by invading countries that don't want to prescribe to it's restrictions, and to the millions it kills to support the comfortable lifestyles of those at the top. 

Further you made the claim that somehow socialism went out of it's way to specifically kill millions, I guess you're referring to Sovietism, which you must see is very different. It's the same as saying social conservatism is basically fascism. 

[Notafront4adragon]

6 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

Climate socialism is the worst form of socialism. The demands effectively mean you have to deindustrialize the planet which means billions of people would starve to death.

This is nonsense. Only those that jump to extremes and are incapable of open mindness, would believe that is the only solution and therefore only outcome. 

[Notafront4adragon]

1 minute ago, zhoutonged said:

I agree and Climate Science can not be questioned. You couldn't make it up.

Again nonsense, it's questioned all the time, especially by those who practice climate science. Often the most obnoxious and out spoken are poor and from obviously bias parties but there are some legitimate questions that are welcomed and added to the debate. Often deniers completely, well deny that there's even a point to debating, strangely whilst benefiting hugely from the status quo and the continued exploitation of our environment.

[Notafront4adragon]

1 minute ago, zhoutonged said:

But these green ideas are gaining ground, even with a conservative Government we are talking about becoming Carbon neutral by 2050?  We are a Carbon based life form. Co2 is a life gas, it's plant food.  Plants are the bottom of the food chain in a carbon based eco system. Basically Sun light, warmth and Co2 are essential to a thriving planet.

It's not plant food, that is an oversimplified misunderstanding, it's a limiting factor to vegetative growth, but so is nitrogen, or sunlight or temperature. Having much higher temperatures with increased CO2 would be fantastic for plants, especially as most mammals including humans would die out, back to lizards and bugs in charge.

Organic life being carbon based also has very little to do with CO2, by that logic raising CO2 will somehow help diamonds or long chain polymers? Further whilst atmospheric CO2 is the sexy media personality, that's really only part of the problem with raising CO2 output levels, issues such as acidifying the ocean as a result of increasing CO2 levels is already seriously damaging ocean ecosystems.

It's part of a balanced system that requires equilibriums to be maintained. You can't change that equilibrium and expect everything to be fine for human life.

[Notafront4adragon]

19 minutes ago, zhoutonged said:

But these green ideas are gaining ground, even with a conservative Government we are talking about becoming Carbon neutral by 2050?  We are a Carbon based life form. Co2 is a life gas, it's plant food.  Plants are the bottom of the food chain in a carbon based eco system. Basically Sun light, warmth and Co2 are essential to a thriving planet.

And to be fair I'd agree with calls to radically reduce carbon out to zero in a short time frame, such as extinction rebellion, Greta etc are clamouring for is both implausible and would require serious pain that only comfortable middle class people believe they would be ok with (they would not). That kind of radical and impossible approach, which would actually cause further counter productive suffering and death is as bad as flat out denial of the problem. 

[sixgun]

The further to the Left in the political spectrum you go the more control the State takes. The Communist State is at the extreme - property rights are removed and the State owns and runs the economy. We see totalitarian control through the likes of the Stasi, in the old German (un)Democratic Republic.

Fascism is also on the Left - hence the fascist party of Germany the NSDAP - the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The State and (big) corporations work together - this is the sort of situation we increasingly find ourselves in these days. Fascism is NOT Far Right - this is the usual Far Left inversion and projection.

The further to the Right one moves the more personal freedom we see - the Far Right is in fact Anarchism. Anarchism is not necessarily chaos and 24/7 riots - again people are misled. Anarchism is where there is no State and you look out for yourself with no-one telling you how to be and act. In small homogeneous communities where people voluntarily help each other then Anarchism of sorts could exist. Of course that would do away with government altogether and the control system couldn't have that.

So Libertarians are on the Right and Authoritarians are on the Left. The usual suspects are Far Left but as usual make out they are there to help, when they are there to help themselves. 

[sixgun]

11 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

And to be fair I'd agree with calls to radically reduce carbon out to zero in a short time frame, such as extinction rebellion, Greta etc are clamouring for is both implausible and would require serious pain that only comfortable middle class people believe they would be ok with (they would not). That kind of radical and impossible approach, which would actually cause further counter productive suffering and death is as bad as flat out denial of the problem. 

The 'Green Agenda' has nothing to do with the environment - it is about depopulation and wealth redistribution - distributing it into the pockets of the usual suspects. It is about controlling and impoverishing people. It is about taking people back to a pre-industrial way of life. It is all that is in Agenda 2030. The sooner people wake up to this the better. Sadly so many are unaware they are sleep walking off the cliff edge to their own destruction.

[silenceissilver]

43 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Also name a political system that doesn't have blood on it's hands through both policy and direct action. His point, I believe, was it was human actions, and the need to control people that killed others. Capitalism, which I presume you are in favour of, has by that reasoning certainly killed as many if not more in the same time frame both by invading countries that don't want to prescribe to it's restrictions, and to the millions it kills to support the comfortable lifestyles of those at the top. 

Further you made the claim that somehow socialism went out of it's way to specifically kill millions, I guess you're referring to Sovietism, which you must see is very different. It's the same as saying social conservatism is basically fascism. 

I'm a libertarian. I think capitalism is a Marxist propaganda term but I'm not 100% sure. Also see sixgun's post above that takes away a lot of what I wanted to say.

No, I don't refer to Sovietism but to Socialism. It has killed millions outside the Soviet Union too, think of China, Cambodia but also of African and South American and also Eastern European countries like Eastern Germany. There alone many 1000s were killed.

Socialism is an ideology that unavoidably leads to a high death toll because it's based on looking for a scape goat that is in the way of creating paradise on earth. This is the way of thinking and it doesn't go away after a socialistic revolution, therefore, once the "class enemy" has been destroyed, socialists turn on each other. Some are accused of not being socialistic enough, that's why it failed, so they claim. The mass killing is inherent to this way of thinking.

[sixgun]

10 minutes ago, zhoutonged said:

Do you concur with those assertions? 

This is all correct - off the top of my head i am not sure about the 200 year lag between rising carbon dioxide and ocean temperatures - i might even extend that time. The main thrust is rising temperatures cause rising carbon dioxide levels, not the other way round.
As a fizzy drink warms up it gives up its dissolved carbon dioxide and goes flat.

Of course the science is settled in the Climate debate - yes it is - carbon dioxide is not causing global warming - since the levels of carbon dioxide have risen the satellite images of the Earth show it is getting greener - a Green Agenda would be advocating higher carbon dioxide levels. As i have said and @silenceissilver quoted me on this, we are in a world of opposites - an inversion, which he correctly asserted is a feature of Satanism.

[silenceissilver]

56 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

This is nonsense. Only those that jump to extremes and are incapable of open mindness, would believe that is the only solution and therefore only outcome. 

You haven't read your Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But I have and the leftists activists have. The modus operandi is never to be satisfied once they get through with one demand. It's ever just the basis for the next, more radical demand. We could see this the last 50 years, it's in their playbook and thus climatism naturally leads to the complete deindustrialisation, if the Gretas get it their way.

But apart from that the demands are so extreme already now, that the only way to satisfy them would be to dismantle all industry. You can see this in Germany. Merkel has stopped nuclear power a few years ago and now she wants to finishe the next energy sector, energy production with coal.

[Notafront4adragon]

3 minutes ago, sixgun said:

The further to the Left in the political spectrum you go the more control the State takes. The Communist State is at the extreme - property rights are removed and the State owns and runs the economy. We see totalitarian control through the likes of the Stasi, in the old German (un)Democratic Republic.

Fascism is also on the Left - hence the fascist party of Germany the NSDAP - the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The State and (big) corporations work together - this is the sort of situation we increasingly find ourselves in these days. Fascism is NOT Far Right - this is the usual Far Left inversion and projection.

The further to the Right one moves the more personal freedom we see - the Far Right is in fact Anarchism. Anarchism is not necessarily chaos and 24/7 riots - again people are misled. Anarchism is where there is no State and you look out for yourself with no-one telling you how to be and act. In small homogeneous communities where people voluntarily help each other then Anarchism of sorts could exist. Of course that would do away with government altogether and the control system couldn't have that.

So Libertarians are on the Right and Authoritarians are on the Left. The usual suspects are Far Left but as usual make out they are there to help, when they are there to help themselves. 

I've always seen anarchism as kinda shooting off at a tangent from traditional right left, as in it doesn't fit any definition those systems demand. Whilst I see your point about authoritarianism being left and neo libertarianism being right, I can't agree about the nazis actually being socialist, that's like saying the DRC is actually ever democratic, just cause it's in the name doesn't make it so. Nazi policy doesn't follow socialist doctrine. It was certainly authoritarian and therefore by your definition left.

As to homogenous anarchists groups, if we're back to arguing ethnicity and keeping those group ethnically identical as you've purposed previously etc then we'll get no where, I don't believe a) it's a good idea genetically b) actually in reality practically possible or c) actually necessary for success.

If you wanna talk about smaller group with some sort of common ground or belief to unite them then maybe. Biker gangs/clubs as I understand it are actually quite good examples of anarchists societies working well for them. Sadly there aren't any proper examples we can look at as they all exist as pockets contained and allowed to exist within wider society. 

[sixgun]

1 minute ago, silenceissilver said:

You haven't read your Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But I have and the leftists activists have. The modus operandi is never to be satisfied once they get through with one demand. It's ever just the basis for the next, more radical cdemand. We could see this the last 50 years, it's in their playbook and thus climatism naturally leads to the complete deindustrialisation, if the Gretas get it their way.

We have seen it in some many areas - give them an inch and they will take a mile.
First the women wanted to cast off their bras and burn them - now the men call themselves women and want to put them on on.

Step-by-step into some sort of insanity.

[Notafront4adragon]

4 minutes ago, sixgun said:

We have seen it in some many areas - give them an inch and they will take a mile.
First the women wanted to cast off their bras and burn them - now the men call themselves women and want to put them on on.

Step-by-step into some sort of insanity.

To be fair men did tell them to put the bras on first. Men were pretending to be women long before the 60s

[sixgun]

14 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I've always seen anarchism as kinda shooting off at a tangent from traditional right left, as in it doesn't fit any definition those systems demand. Whilst I see your point about authoritarianism being left and neo libertarianism being right, I can't agree about the nazis actually being socialist, that's like saying the DRC is actually ever democratic, just cause it's in the name doesn't make it so. Nazi policy doesn't follow socialist doctrine. It was certainly authoritarian and therefore by your definition left.

The National Socialist were/are Socialists. Western societies have been progressively taken over by Leftists - hard Leftists. You won't hear that on the BBC b/c they move and act with stealth and deception - inch-by-inch until that have their stranglehold. These people have labelled the National Socialist are the ultimate Bogeyman so they won't admit they are really kissing cousins.

14 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

As to homogenous anarchists groups, if we're back to arguing ethnicity and keeping those group ethnically identical as you've purposed previously etc then we'll get no where, I don't believe a) it's a good idea genetically b) actually in reality practically possible or c) actually necessary for success.

Homogeneous societies are the most stable - the most cooperative - the least violent. This is a fact proven. There have been research studies on this. Of course with the cult of multi-culturalism this will be denied, censor and smeared. So a homogeneous society is the most likely to be successful in a state of Anarchism where authoritarian controls have been stripped away. 

---

Added 0 minutes later...

6 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

To be fair men did tell them to put the bras on first. Men were pretending to be women long before the 60s

Men told them to put the bra on first? i thought men were always trying to take them off.

[Notafront4adragon]

42 minutes ago, zhoutonged said:

We can agree on the one thing at least

You are obviously able to think for yourself so can you answer me with your own thoughts on the following. I need to keep this simple as I can, you can tell me where you disagree if you do. The following assertions are true.

1. The biggest carbon sink in the World by some order of magnitude are the Oceans.

2. Warmer Oceans give up Co2, in effect the warmer the water the less carbon can be held in a dissolved state.

3. Evidence shows historical increases in temperature lead to an increase in atmospheric Co2, although it has been shown there is a lag of aprox 200 years due to the thermal mass of all the water in all the Oceans being so enormous.

 

Do you concur with those assertions? 

 

Sort of. 

1) I would question what you mean by carbon sink for the oceans bit, one could argue soil and attached systems are more important for how carbon is taken out of the atmosphere and stored.

2) yes ok.

3) yes, but this is almost more concerning as our actions and the possible increases would lead to a positive feedback system making our, humans, survival more precarious.

I can see what you are trying to argue, that the extra carbon is coming from warmer seas etc. but that is only part of the story. I can't easily disseminate why that is without re reading my university notes, sitting down with you for many long hours, and interacting regularly with the scientific community. Further the warm oceans idea still doesn't really answer the question what happens if we change equilibriums and accelerate CO2 release levels. Does it mean human life is sustainable without major adaptations? So far the majority of best guesses by scientists and other specialists say it doesn't look good if we continue this way. Should we take steps to change the way we power our world if given the impetuous and initial funding those ways can become economically viable? Again I think it's prudent to do so and not be so arrogant to ignore multiple warnings.