There is so much fake science and there has been too make false pronouncements from the IPCC to take them seriously anymore.Arising_uk wrote:Just conspiracy nonsense, that disaster capitalism may exist is one thing but to think you could fake all the science is just plain unlikely.Pluto wrote:It makes sense that it's a hoax, we can lump it all together with the other problems. To do globalisation you need a smoke-screen, that is the fox in the chicken house, while you're not looking, the floor has been removed. It enables leverage too.
Why would you think this of any interest to others?Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
I feel content.
See above....even, if at any time, I am banned here.
Save your pity for yourself as it is you who needs it as you are delusional that you are pushing anything.Feel sorry for people like you. Anyone who pushes the envelope - really pushes the envelope, you are frightened of.
Like I said, delusional.You fear me and I still, to this day, do not understand why.
Delusional.Saved your ass many times - even took you in as my apprentice for a while...
For sure it is but I save it for those who can philosophise.Still, no respect. It's just not in you.
Because it's what feeds your delusions and you get off on these.Everyone bites at my heels. Somehow I wouldn't want it any other way.[/size]
AUK,Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is so much fake science and there has been too make false pronouncements from the IPCC to take them seriously anymore.Arising_uk wrote:Just conspiracy nonsense, that disaster capitalism may exist is one thing but to think you could fake all the science is just plain unlikely.Pluto wrote:It makes sense that it's a hoax, we can lump it all together with the other problems. To do globalisation you need a smoke-screen, that is the fox in the chicken house, while you're not looking, the floor has been removed. It enables leverage too.
. Yes of course it is in your world, but not at all to those who can and perhaps must, as an historical necessity, create, your reality. The architects of reality, are content in your created ceiling of thought. You live in the micro world, which gets its meaning from those who inhabit the macro. Of course you're going to see things differently from where you are. But your frame of what's likely has nothing to do with the frame of what's possible, inhabited by those who (attempt to) control the world. It's designed that way. A number of tiers, in one not all is thought possible, in another, things open up a bit, etc....plain unlikely
But in my reality I'm a bit of an old historical materialist so those who by necessity create my reality are everyone else. I say a bit because whilst I reject your 'great men' of History angle I do think that in the tides of historical humanity there are moments where the individual plays their part and depending upon which individual gets the role the future shape of history is changed.Pluto wrote:Yes of course it is in your world, but not at all to those who can and perhaps must, as an historical necessity, create, your reality. ...
I don't think these 'architects of reality' exist in any meaningful historical sense but for sure there are those who might think they are but from what I can see they're not very good at it as they seem to fail all the time and not in control of events at all.The architects of reality, are content in your created ceiling of thought. ...
Ever thought that if what you think is true then you'd not know about it and if what you think isn't true you'd still think it was? Cock-up theory not conspiracy.You live in the micro world, which gets its meaning from those who inhabit the macro. Of course you're going to see things differently from where you are. But your frame of what's likely has nothing to do with the frame of what's possible, inhabited by those who (attempt to) control the world. It's designed that way. A number of tiers, in one not all is thought possible, in another, things open up a bit, etc.
Sure, conspiracy versus cock-up theory.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Pluto and A-uk - do you think you are really debating anything here?
I'm not sure which is more compelling.Arising_uk wrote:Sure, conspiracy versus cock-up theory.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Pluto and A-uk - do you think you are really debating anything here?
They are husband and wife. Father and son.Sure, conspiracy versus cock-up theory.
AK, don't feed the Troll.Arising_uk wrote:Bill Wiltrack wrote:
Feed who I like thanks and always unsure you can have a troll in a philosophy forum.thedoc wrote:AK, don't feed the Troll.
Trolls can exist anywhere, it all depends on how tolerant the moderators are. After all they let me in.Arising_uk wrote:Feed who I like thanks and always unsure you can have a troll in a philosophy forum.thedoc wrote:AK, don't feed the Troll.